NationStates Jolt Archive

But how many of those are actually legal US Citizens?

they're probably handing out cartons of cigarettes to illegal immigrants who can't even speak English... to sign this thing.

Can't say I wouldn't be surprised... it's things like this where the left-wing zealots show their low character.

a couple posts back someone said that the democrats were going to look really bad after this is shot down with disdain...

I agree: egg will cover the faces of the entire Democratic party, the good and the bad, for the jump-to-conclusions, believe-anything-anyone-has-to-say-against-President-Bush influence of the nutjob portion of Democrats.

How hard is it for someone to look up a zip code on the internet and provide a fake address?

The point is, the petitioners have to go through and weed out all the ineligible signers and fakes for the petition to be valid.

If people are that desperate to put their name on it then good luck to them, its not like it would make a difference if 500,000 American names were on a petition where 250+million people live

Actually, everything we have said will be proven right once Bush either confesses or refuses to give any comment or he blatently tries to cover up this story.
*falls over laughing*

Do you have any ideas the number of petitions that get sent to the government that are just ignored because they are ridiculous?

*shakes head and snickers*

they're probably handing out cartons of cigarettes to illegal immigrants who can't even speak English... to sign this thing.

Can't say I wouldn't be surprised... it's things like this where the left-wing zealots show their low character.

a couple posts back someone said that the democrats were going to look really bad after this is shot down with disdain...

I agree: egg will cover the faces of the entire Democratic party, the good and the bad.

Stop being a troll :mad:

If people are that desperate to put their name on it then good luck to them, its not like it would make a difference if 500,000 American names were on a petition where 250+million people live
EXACTLY!

In order for this petition to be effective, it'd have to have roughly 100,000,000 signatures.

Actually, everything we have said will be proven right once Bush either confesses or refuses to give any comment or he blatently tries to cover up this story.

You really are ignorant aren't you?

I'm still waiting on the proof that Bush knowingly lied to the American People.

Stop being a troll :mad:

stop being someone who assumes the worst based on nothing more than hatred for someone you don't even know... and the word of one advisor against probably 20 or 30 others... if you were president, and one guy was making a stink where everyone else thought something else, whom would you listen to?

You really are ignorant aren't you?

I'm still waiting on the proof that Bush knowingly lied to the American People.

We have given you the proof, you just refuse to believe it. You have yet to give us proof that he did not lie. By the way, anyone who supports Bush is a moron.

You really are ignorant aren't you?

I'm still waiting on the proof that Bush knowingly lied to the American People.

you'll be waiting for a very long time, because there isn't any... it's all an attempt by the more crazy portion of the Left to get some attention. They want to be the wicked political minority, they want to do damage, they want attention, like a bunch of five-year-olds.

We have given you the proof, you just refuse to believe it. You have yet to give us proof that he did not lie. By the way, anyone who supports Bush is a moron.

i support bush. There are a whole lot of highly intelligent people not chasing their tails over this BS... who think rationally, who are not using their hatred of a guy affect their judgment. To me, they're (those letting their hearts speak for their brains) the morons.

anyone who doesn't support Bush is a traitor... that makes about as much sense as your sofakingwetoddit statement.

We have given you the proof, you just refuse to believe it. You have yet to give us proof that he did not lie. By the way, anyone who supports Bush is a moron.

Then I guess your dumbass for making that last statement because anyone that supports the democrats is a dumbass.

Now that the petty-ass insults are out of the way, a President can only make decisions based on the intelligence he receives from his intelligence departments.

If anyone lied, it would be the intelligence departments that gave him the info. BTW: Do you know the difference between a lie and Faulty Intel?

OKAY. STOP with the flames, BOTH of you, or I'm going to report this to the Mods.

"Don't MAKE me stop this car!" :p

stop being someone who assumes the worst based on nothing more than hatred for someone you don't even know... and the word of one advisor against probably 20 or 30 others... if you were president, and one guy was making a stink where everyone else thought something else, whom would you listen to?

Don't assume you know what I think or where I take a stand on this particular topic. Your right Bush isn't my favourite person but I'm hardly calling for his impeachment like some people who seem to be getting way ahead of themselves.

Don't assume you know what I think or where I take a stand on this particular topic. Your right Bush isn't my favourite person but I'm hardly calling for his impeachment like some people who seem to be getting way ahead of themselves.

then i wasn't speaking to you, if you're not in that camp. cool?

I still find it funny that u think you have left wing :D

then i wasn't speaking to you, if you're not in that camp. cool?

all good

yah, let me re-phrase:

the American Left Wing (read: poorly raised irrational lunatics)

hehe

I don't know if this reference has already been made since I didn't read all 35 previous pages of the debate, but, when Kennedy messed up in Cuba after sending Cuban ex-patriots to the Bay of Pigs, a decision he made based on bad intelligence, he came out and took full responsibility for it. Afterward, he fired the idiots who gave him that intelligence. Why can't Bush do the same? Also, you cannot use the argument that Saddam is a bad guy because that's not the same argument used before the war started. That's an ex post facto argument. You can't do that when justifying a war, especially when using the Jus Ad Bellum ethical standard.

yah, let me re-phrase:

the American Left Wing (read: poorly raised irrational lunatics)

hehe

Why do you people assume that all democrats (or liberals) are bad? I dont think that all republicans are bad. I just hate everyone in the Bush administration. I also hate democrats like John Kerry (even though I would vote for him instead of Bush). I even like some conservative views but people like Bush really tick me off.

I don't know if this reference has already been made since I didn't read all 35 previous pages of the debate, but, when Kennedy messed up in Cuba after sending Cuban ex-patriots to the Bay of Pigs, a decision he made based on bad intelligence, he came out and took full responsibility for it. Afterward, he fired the idiots who gave him that intelligence. Why can't Bush do the same? Also, you cannot use the argument that Saddam is a bad guy because that's not the same argument used before the war started. That's an ex post facto argument. You can't do that when justifying a war, especially when using the Jus Ad Bellum ethical standard.

George Tenet did get canned. The Intel had a shake up and Bush ordered an investigation into the intelligence he received. That investigation led to Tenet getting canned and thus the merger of all Intel departments under the New National Director of Intelligence.

Why do you people assume that all democrats (or liberals) are bad? I dont think that all republicans are bad. I just hate everyone in the Bush administration. I also hate democrats like John Kerry (even though I would vote for him instead of Bush). I even like some conservative views but people like Bush really tick me off.

but the democrats arn't left wing if you take a global look at politics

but the democrats arn't left wing if you take a global look at politics

I agree with you on this Gataway. They really aren't but.....

Its fun to claim it anyway :D

I agree with you on this Gataway. They really aren't but.....

Its fun to claim it anyway :D

lol

George Tenet did get canned. The Intel had a shake up and Bush ordered an investigation into the intelligence he received. That investigation led to Tenet getting canned and thus the merger of all Intel departments under the New National Director of Intelligence.
Didn't i hear something about him getting a meritorious service medal of some hype, some significantly outstanding kind of recognition? After all this?

George Tenet did get canned. The Intel had a shake up and Bush ordered an investigation into the intelligence he received. That investigation led to Tenet getting canned and thus the merger of all Intel departments under the New National Director of Intelligence.

So what? Bush still has not said that he makde a mistake. He only said he had faulty intelligence. He didnt admit he made a mistake. Also, he still has not left Iraq.

Didn't i hear something about him getting a meritorious service medal of some hype, some significantly outstanding kind of recognition? After all this?

He got the Presidential Medal of Freedom due to the intel. However, it turned out to be false and he got his ass kicked right out of the CIA by Bush. Interesting isn't? Bush gives him a medal then Bush finds it to be wrong and he boots Tenet's ass out.

How hard is it for someone to look up a zip code on the internet and provide a fake address?

The point is, the petitioners have to go through and weed out all the ineligible signers and fakes for the petition to be valid.
Or they can go to someone like Katherine Harris and have a court rule the count invalid for shady purposes, and we can skip all the "legal mumbo-jumbo"!

Rep. Katherine Harris Will Run for Senate
From Times Wire Reports

Republican Rep. Katherine Harris, who as Florida's secretary of state was praised and vilified for her part in the 2000 presidential recount, said in Tallahassee that she would run for the Senate next year against Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson.

Her announcement brings a major name to the race — along with the potential to attract infusions of cash from Republicans and Democrats because she is such a polarizing figure.

He got the Presidential Medal of Freedom due to the intel. However, it turned out to be false and he got his ass kicked right out of the CIA by Bush. Interesting isn't? Bush gives him a medal then Bush finds it to be wrong and he boots Tenet's ass out.
So you're saying he revoked the medal? There's a link to that, right?

Or they can go to someone like Katherine Harris and have a court rule the count invalid for shady purposes, and we can skip all the "legal mumbo-jumbo"!

HAHAHAHA!!!! So very rich Straughn but so very false too.

Rep. Katherine Harris Will Run for Senate
From Times Wire Reports

Republican Rep. Katherine Harris, who as Florida's secretary of state was praised and vilified for her part in the 2000 presidential recount, said in Tallahassee that she would run for the Senate next year against Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson.

Her announcement brings a major name to the race — along with the potential to attract infusions of cash from Republicans and Democrats because she is such a polarizing figure.

Good. She'll make a good senator. Hope she wins Bill Nelson's seat!

So you're saying he revoked the medal? There's a link to that, right?

Where on earth did I say the medal got revoked?

He got the Presidential Medal of Freedom due to the intel. However, it turned out to be false and he got his ass kicked right out of the CIA by Bush. Interesting isn't? Bush gives him a medal then Bush finds it to be wrong and he boots Tenet's ass out.
You're also saying of course he didn't RESIGN, of his own accord, and Bush didn't make some bullsh*t public "wistful" comment about "sad to see him go" kind of thing? I sure as hell remember a few right wing mouthpieces going on about that ....

Where on earth did I say the medal got revoked?
So you're asking a question to a question? Muddy waters here .... ;)
I'm asking you if that's exactly what you're saying, and if so, to provide a link.
*maybe he'll toss it over the fence at some rally* ;)

...the merger of all Intel departments under the New National Director of Intelligence.
Which pissed me off to no end...especially when conservatives trashed Gore's idea of a "National Intelligence Directorate" as a communist idea...and Bush goes and does roughly the same thing (albeit with a different name) and gets a free pass.

HAHAHAHA!!!! So very rich Straughn but so very false too.



Good. She'll make a good senator. Hope she wins Bill Nelson's seat!
Heh, she's already had the voting public's *SEAT* with a barbed-wire fist, w/out the curteousy of a reacharound.

So what? Bush still has not said that he makde a mistake. He only said he had faulty intelligence. He didnt admit he made a mistake. Also, he still has not left Iraq.

And I'm glad we haven't left Iraq yet.

And Bush doesn't have to apologize for anything. He came out and said he had faulty intel and that's good enough for me.

Which pissed me off to no end...especially when conservatives trashed Gore's idea of a "National Intelligence Directorate" as a communist idea...and Bush goes and does roughly the same thing (albeit with a different name) and gets a free pass.
Admittedly Gore didn't have the "charisma" to not sound like some kind of alien. Maybe it's also the questionable IQ's of the people presented with decisions by the current administration.

You're also saying of course he didn't RESIGN, of his own accord, and Bush didn't make some bullsh*t public "wistful" comment about "sad to see him go" kind of thing? I sure as hell remember a few right wing mouthpieces going on about that ....

He was probably asked to tender his resignation. It looks good that way. Just like CBS asked Dan Rather to resign as host of his show. Its along the same lines.

HAHAHAHA!!!! So very rich Straughn but so very false too.




M'kay, what you got to show me up with? I'm waiting ... with bells on!
Show me how it's false ... not a runaround.

So you're asking a question to a question? Muddy waters here .... ;)
I'm asking you if that's exactly what you're saying, and if so, to provide a link.
*maybe he'll toss it over the fence at some rally* ;)

Tenet was basically fired for the faulty intel the CIA had. He was given a medal for that intel but it turned out to be false so he got canned. He still has the medal as far as I know.

Which pissed me off to no end...especially when conservatives trashed Gore's idea of a "National Intelligence Directorate" as a communist idea...and Bush goes and does roughly the same thing (albeit with a different name) and gets a free pass.

It was one of the things I actually agreed with Gore on. Anyway, I didn't like Gore's stance on military matters and when he spoke at my highschool, he left out the military in his speech. That was very dumb of him to do because there are many military bases around where I live.

He was probably asked to tender his resignation. It looks good that way. Just like CBS asked Dan Rather to resign as host of his show. Its along the same lines.
But you don't actually KNOW, do you? Do you have a link, maybe?
I understand it looks nicey nicey to act prim & proper ... kind of like what happened to Valerie Plame over Joseph Wilson's testimony regarding yellowcake and Niger.
*FUNFACT: Plame and Rove go to the same Episcopal Church! ROTFL!*

Heh, she's already had the voting public's *SEAT* with a barbed-wire fist, w/out the curteousy of a reacharound.

:confused:

But you don't actually KNOW, do you? Do you have a link, maybe?
I understand it looks nicey nicey to act prim & proper ... kind of like what happened to Valerie Plame over Joseph Wilson's testimony regarding yellowcake and Niger.
*FUNFACT: Plame and Rove go to the same Episcopal Church! ROTFL!*

All I know is that he resigned. He resigned shortly after the investigation into the intelligence came to light. Your right that I don't know but the evidence is compelling that he probably didn't leave on his own accord. He was probably asked to leave.

Tenet was basically fired for the faulty intel the CIA had. He was given a medal for that intel but it turned out to be false so he got canned. He still has the medal as far as I know.

Haha, that is retarded. But where is the proof? Give us the site.

Tenet was basically fired for the faulty intel the CIA had. He was given a medal for that intel but it turned out to be false so he got canned. He still has the medal as far as I know.
What the hell kind of political protocol is that? That basically diminishes/defeats the integrity of the medal and for all the people who EARNED and DESERVED that kind of recognition. Shameful. Even for this administration.

M'kay, what you got to show me up with? I'm waiting ... with bells on!
Show me how it's false ... not a runaround.

Actually you made the assertion she did what she did. You prove it.

:confused:
It's in a NIN song ... ya know ...
"Big time, hard line, bad luck ... FIST F*CK!"
*Wish, off the album Broken

Haha, that is retarded. But where is the proof? Give us the site.

The fact that he left shortly after the Intelligence was proven false.

What the hell kind of political protocol is that? That basically diminishes/defeats the integrity of the medal and for all the people who EARNED and DESERVED that kind of recognition. Shameful. Even for this administration.

Well...

As far as I know he still has his medal. It wasn't taken away from him. At that point, we thought that it was accurate. When it turned out to be false, he left.

The fact that he left shortly after the Intelligence was proven false.

You didnt prove it fool. Give us the damn site.

Actually you made the assertion she did what she did. You prove it.
Actually you should prove that it's false since i'm calling your assertion on my post.
To be fair, it'd take me more time than i've got to gravedig but i've definitely posted on this ... you might not have read that thread (a year ago?) or you have a selective memory ...
But i guess i'll TG it or if this thread is up on the morrow i'll post it here. I've got two minutes left on this computer (public)
*explains his sparse appearance of late on NS*

Actually you made the assertion she did what she did. You prove it.
You know how I love to stick my nose in ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Harris
Harris has been accused of acting in a partisan manner in conducting the Florida election count. No charges have ever been filed. In addition to her opposition to recounts in predominantly democractic counties, those who accuse Harris of acting in a partisan manner allege that:

Before the election, a firm hired by Harris in her capacity as Secretary of State to purge convicted felons from the voter rolls erroneously removed 8,000 registered voters who had been convicted only of misdemeanors, thousands of others who had the same names as felons, and a few whose computer records said they had committed crimes in the future.

Harris unlawfully certified the election results from 20 of Florida's 67 counties without requiring - as mandated under Florida law for elections decided by one half of one percent or less - that they conduct automatic machine recounts.

Harris unlawfully accepted and certified the results of hand recounts in six Florida counties that produced an additional 400 votes for George W. Bush while rejecting the results of hand recounts in other counties.

Not accusing her of rigging the election but thats what she apparently did.

You didnt prove it fool. Give us the damn site.

Stop with the insults moron.

You know how I love to stick my nose in ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Harris


Not accusing her of rigging the election but thats what she apparently did.

Apparently there wasn't any evidence either! BTW: She did things by the book. The results showed that Bush won Florida so she certified them. Nothing wrong with that.

The memo is Bull.

Apparently there wasn't any evidence either! BTW: She did things by the book. The results showed that Bush won Florida so she certified them. Nothing wrong with that.

far be it for me to judge :D . I'm just stating what she was accused of and that she wasn't accused of rigging the election

far be it for me to judge :D . I'm just stating what she was accused of and that she wasn't accused of rigging the election

LOL! Considering that machine recount still gave bush the election....

The memo is Bull.

and what makes you come to that conclusion?

I'm willing to bet that that memo is fake

LOL! Considering that machine recount still gave bush the election....

wasn't there an allegation about the machines aswel? I wish there was this much controversy obout the UK election :D . Its never close enough ;)

Stop with the insults moron.

Stop with the insults? I asked you nicely the first time, you didnt prove it properly. So I got a little ticked off because you dodged my command of "Give the site" As a result, I called you fool.

But here you seem to be diverting attention from the fact that you STILL have not given me the site stating that Tenet was canned by Bush but yet his medal was not taken away. I suggest you stop trying to change the subject and give me the site, if you have one.

I'm willing to bet that that memo is fake

I'ts not fake it was released in 2002 thats why Tony Blair has said "its nothing new"

The memo is Bull.

The Ghas, my friends, is a perfect exmaple of a person in denial.

Stop with the insults? I asked you nicely the first time, you didnt prove it properly. So I got a little ticked off because you dodged my command of "Give the site" As a result, I called you fool.

Because his resignation was blasted all over every news media in the country. I don't care about what brought his resignation on, I'm just glad he's gone

But here you seem to be diverting attention from the fact that you STILL have not given me the site stating that Tenet was canned by Bush but yet his medal was not taken away.

Because we just don't know if Bush canned him or he really did leave on his own accord.

The Ghas, my friends, is a perfect exmaple of a person in denial.

you know if your respectful to the people your debating with you might just earn some respect aswel

wasn't there an allegation about the machines aswel? I wish there was this much controversy obout the UK election :D . Its never close enough ;)

LOL! Yea that would make watching British Politics that much more interesting though your parliment is exciting enough! LOL

you know if your respectful to the people your debating with you might just earn some respect aswel

Well said Gataway_Driver. Well said.

Because his resignation was blasted all over every news media in the country. I don't care about what brought his resignation on, I'm just glad he's gone

Because we just don't know if Bush canned him or he really did leave on his own accord.

So in other words, you dont have any proof. So now how do we know whether your information is credible?

So in other words, you dont have any proof. So now how do we know whether your information is credible?

Are you denying the fact that Tenet Resigned?

your all a bunch of pinko morons :headbang: . cant you see that whether or not he had them when we went in, he used to have them?? he gased the Kurds for crying out loud!!! and, polish troops DID find weapons, something which the media tried not to cover: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39243

and so what? if he did, or if he didnt, who really cares? he was a dictator. he filled mass graves all of iraq. he was a mass kiler. he deserved to go, and the world is better off without him.

i got a question for all of you, how many resolutions did the UN make against iraq? hmmmmm? what was it...17??!! so why is it that, when the UN (a corrupt organization which all you liberals love) makes resolution after resolution and saddamm basically gives the world the middle finger, the UN decides to back off, every time, but when the USA, one of the powers of the UN, and basically the only thing holding the UN together finally gets enough courage to do what the UN would not, we're the bad guys?!??!!? please explain the logic behind that, will you?

Saddam did gas the Kurds. Thats why the northern no fly zone was established. TELL ME ALL YOU LEFT WING FANATICS: HOW DID HE DO THIS WITHOUT WMDS??? HOW??? SADDAM HAD THEM AT ONE TIME. hE PROBABLY SHIPED THEM OFF THE LIBIA, BECAUSE WE GAVE HIM 6 ****ING MONTHS TO HIDE THEM. AND IT IS NOT BUSH'S FALT IF THE CIA SCREWED UP!!!

Ok, im done ranting. How come we never hear about when democratic president screw up over foregn police? Anyone remember the BAY OF PIGS??? Not to dis Kennedy because he was one of the best presidents (along with Reagon, Washington, FDR, and Lincoln), but he did screw up. He didn't get in any troble. Bush didn't even screw up. People aren't still discusing the Bay of Pigs because Kennedy was a Demo. They'll be talking about Iraq for years.

Are you denying the fact that Tenet Resigned?

Not necessarily, I am just simply stating that we do not really know whether he truly left or not. We really do not know whether this is a rumor or if this is actual truth. Therefore, you really cannot say that Bush was like Kennedy because he fired Tenet when you have no proof if that is true or not.

Not necessarily, I am just simply stating that we do not really know whether he truly left or not.

Considering that Bush nominated someone to head the CIA then turned right around and tapped Negroponte as NDIA... Yea I say he left. Besides that, I did see his resignation speech.

We really do not know whether this is a rumor or if this is actual truth. Therefore, you really cannot say that Bush was like Kennedy because he fired Tenet when you have no proof if that is true or not.

And I've already said that we don't know if he was fired or he left at his own accord. I just stated MY OPINION that Bushed fired him by asking for his resignation. Is it true? I don't know.

Saddam did gas the Kurds.

Before Gulf War 1. After which his WMD stockpiles were eliminated by UN inspection teams.

blah, blah, <snip>.... Ok, im done ranting.

Good. Next time you get the urge take a deep breath, count to ten, then do some research first.

Considering that Bush nominated someone to head the CIA then turned right around and tapped Negroponte as NDIA... Yea I say he left. Besides that, I did see his resignation speech.

And I've already said that we don't know if he was fired or he left at his own accord. I just stated MY OPINION that Bushed fired him by asking for his resignation. Is it true? I don't know.

In that case, show me his resignation speech.

In that case, show me his resignation speech.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/press_release/2004/pr06032004.html

All this is is opinion. It was the opinion Matthew Rycroft that the intelligence was "being fixed around the policy". This isn't evidence.

All this is is opinion. It was the opinion Matthew Rycroft that the intelligence was "being fixed around the policy". This isn't evidence.

one of the biggest holes of using the memo as evidence

"Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out." -President Bush in March 2002
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,235395,00.html

It was BAD INTELLIGENCE! How many times does this have to be said? Oh wait. You hate Bush so no matter how much proof we show you that it was only bad intel, you wouldn't believe it.
Another ad-hominem. Gosh, Conservatives sure are good with logic!

I could say the same of you. I could say that you prostrate before President Bush every time he comes on television and believe the Democrats are run by Satan, and that no matter how much evidence is put forth that he lied, you wouldn't believe it...

...But that's a meaningless statement. Because our personal motivations are irrelevant. What we need to examine here is the evidence.

It was bad intelligence. I blame the British for not investigating the Yellowcake thing more thoroughly since it was them in the first place that told us about it. :rolleyes:
LOL. It was the U.S. Embassy that first recieved the documents, buddy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_forgery

And before Bush's presentation, it was already widely speculated that the documents were forgeries.


Why did the British give us the intelligence in the first place if they thought it was sketchy?
Hahahaha.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/images/tony.jpg



Not Bush's fault that the British didn't investigate the Niger thing more thoroughly than they did. They handed the intel to us. Even Bush commented on this that if he KNEW that it wasn't fully accurate, he wouldn't have included it in his State of the Union Address. HE STATED THIS HIMSELF!!!!! So no you can't hang Bush on it. I'm blaming the British for this Intel screw up.
Hahahahaha.


Yes it was but it deals with the FBI.
The FBI also deals with international intelligence. So, they aren't just a "law-enforcement" agency. The things I quoted were merely the major programs and funding that the FBI and other non-law enforcement programs recieved. The increased scope of "pen-and-trap" and "trap-and-trace" taps, as well as sneak-and-peek warrants, were also not strictly for law-enforcement. Yes, law-enforcement will use them. But the goal was to stop international and domestic terrorism. The majority of the PATRIOT Act involves national security. Yes, police help stop that, but it's not their primary concern. That's the FBI and CIA's job. And also, the Secret Service isn't really "law-enforcement", either. They're sort of in-between being military and intelligence, as they guard foreign embassies and sometimes collect intelligence of their own.


And yet we have a database for Rapists and child molestors too. This is just another database to help law enforcement! Jeez. I thought everyone knew this.
A finger-print database, yes. Not DNA. And if you'd like to know the ethical issues with having a DNA database, I suggest you see the movie, "Gattaca." But that's a whole 'nother debate.


Considering I have not heard of the Army of God, I shall not comment on it. As for the teenage girl, if she threatened it good for the cops. Just because someone does a suicide attack, doesn't mean she has connections to terrorists. You know how easy it is to make a bomb on your own?
You must be ignorant if you haven't heard of the Army of God. They've bombed several abortion clinics, shot doctors, rigged cars to explode, and even sent anthrax threats to abortion clinics after 9\11. Although that technically classifies them as "domestic terrorists", the fundamentalist nutcase, Attorney General Ashcroft, refused to go after them for it.

How in the hell is Bush a Fascist? He has shown absolutely no fascist tendencies whatsoever. Prove this!
With the only exception being gun-control, Bush's Fascist tendencies are:

Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - (Goes without saying)
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottoes, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - (Ignoring the Geneva Convention, no safeguards to prevent prison abuse.)
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause (Applying the label "Al-Qaeda" to every anti-American terrorist, including insurgents. Making a false link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda)
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

Supremacy of the Military (Goes without saying.)
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

Rampant Sexism (Gay marriage ban, and Republicans are anti-feminist)
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

Controlled Mass Media (It was discovered that the U.S. had a secret government agency called, "The Office for Strategic Influence", putting out propaganda, but supposedly, only in Iraq. It was shut down when discovered, but Rumsfeld said that's just a name-change, and it's still in operation. Bush also paid a black TV commentator, Armstrong Williams, a quarter of a million dollars to compliment the "No Child Left Behind" program, and there were unproven allegations that they paid columnist Maggie Gallagher 20,000 dollars to write about his marriage initiatve in her columns.)
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

Obsession with National Security (PATRIOT Act. 'Nuff said. All Democrats oppose it and many Republicans oppose it as well, as do Libertarians, like CATO, and I could put forth a whole 'nother vast, well-founded argument as to why the PATRIOT Act is, without question, "obsession with National Security.")
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

Religion and Government are Intertwined (Quoting the Bible after 9\11, repeatedly referencing "God", as well as his faith-based initiatives)
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

Corporate Power is Protected (All politicians do this, to some extent. But the Republicans are notorious for it.)
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

Labor Power is Suppressed (Name one Republican who likes labor unions.)
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .

Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts (Republicans claim Academia and the Media are "liberally-biased", and also oppose funding for high school and college arts programs. Statistics also show that the majority of Liberals go to college for business, not social sciences or any of the humanities.)
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

Obsession with Crime and Punishment (Once again, PATRIOT Act. Not to mention the death penalty. The U.S. is the only "civilized" nation to still have it. Only poor or evil governments still support. Now, that could be considered an ad-hominem, but the very basis for having a death penalty is unfounded, which is why all other civilized nations have removed it from the law.)
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

Rampant Cronyism and Corruption (George Herbert Walker Bush, George W. Bush, Jebediah Bush. You get the idea. Tom DeLay also got caught agreeing to support a friend's son, for political reasons.)
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

Fraudulent Elections (Goes without saying. 1 million black votes were thrown out in Florida in the 2000 Presidential election. Electronic voting machines were proven to be easily tampered with only a few months leading up to the election. The major company that built most of them, DIEBOLD, said he openly supported President Bush.)
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/The_14_characteristics_030303.htm

If you want a "real" Conservative party, check out:
The Reform Party (http://www.reformparty.org/cgi-bin/hcgmain.cgi) (previously led by Ross Perot)

The Reform Party believes in typical Republican ideals (such as strong steps against illegal immigrants), except they believe that the government should be even more limited than the Republicans propose: less money for Congressmen to screw around with, campaign reform, and so on. That's mostly what they center on. They're Conservatives, but they focus on political corruption on both sides. Ross Perot even proposed participatory democracy.

The Reform Party is really the only Conservative party in America, anymore. The Republicans are just fascists.

And just how many of those are actually legal signatures? That is what I would love to know!

It won't make a bit of difference anyway. :rolleyes:
I'm certain they're going to validate them. They're also calling people to get signatures on the petition as well.

Regardless

Not considering the Patriot Act, the faulty intel, the budget or whatever.

The main "factor" here is, Bush went to war. He practically spearheaded the "Coalition". Granted that he didn't go in alone, but he did anyway.

Bush is NOT the only leader to blame, other leaders who went in with him are just as guilty. What kind of leader would just go "yes I'll follow you to war" without kowing all the facts, a matter of trust? Just because Bush was the front man doesn't mean the leaders behind him aren't as guilty as we are saying Bush is.
That's true for large nations, like Britain. But most of the nations were just small nations who, if they didn't participate, they'd have little or no chance of getting foreign aid from the U.S. or support to join the U.N. or NATO. In incredibly small, poor, European and South American countries, you can't expect them to have the resources to investigate American intelligence. And if they asked to review the U.S.'s intelligence, the U.S. would've laughed in their faces and refused. Because, frankly, the members of the coalition haven't done much for Iraq. 1,702 Americans have died in Iraq, but only 89 Brits have died, and only 96 people from other countries. When you put it that way, it doesn't sound like much of a "coalition", does it? Even from Britain, we didn't get much support.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

The Blair admin calls it "nothing new"? What has that got to do with authenticity??
Because that implies that they knew about it before it was released. If they knew about it before it was released, then it can't be a forgery. And no one has even claimed that it's a "forgery."


So the note we are discussing is British? We all know that they dont do as many security checks as us. It goes from our field operatives to a professional who decifers if it is authentic, then it goes to the Head of the CIA who then checks the sanity of anyone who has written or corrected it and then carefully takes it to the President and cabinet. It seems what you have written above that in Britian it goes right from the field operatives to the Prime Minister. Hmmm...
Not at all. It was a summary of their discussions, based upon the information they'd all been given from their separate departments.

As I said in the first post...
Individuals who put out the memo:
Foreign Policy Advisor, David Manning, who endorsed the memo
Matthew Rycroft, Manning's Aide who wrote the memo

Individuals who recieved the memo:
Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon
Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw
Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith
Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson
Chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee, John Scarlett (currently head of MI-6)
Ex-Director of GCHQ, Francis Richards
Chief of Defence Staff (identified as as "CDS"), Admiral Sir Michael Boyce
Head of MI-6 (identified as "C"), Sir Richard Dearlove (resigned in 2003)
Head of Defence Staff, Jonathan Powell
Director of Political & Government Relations, Sally Morgan
Head of Strategy, Alastair Campbell
All of the individuals who put out the memo were merely summarizing the discussions that they'd had with the individuals who recieved the memo. In other words, the Foreign Policy Advisor had meetings with the Defence Secretary, the head of MI-6, the Attorney General, and so on, and he had his aide put out a memo summarizing all that they'd mentioned. They didn't get the information from "field operatives." The head of MI-6 got information from whoever was below him, who got information from whoever was below that person, and so on.


The Chief of MI-6 said that it was UNLIKELY that Iraq was an imminent threat. At this point in time we had documents pointing out that he may have had WMD and this was a man that had a village of 5,000 of Iraqis gassed one morining and WATCHED IT. What you pulled from the memo there looks like the Chief of MI-6's opinion. He obviously didnt know the genecidal phsyco.
And it is still unlikely that Iraq was an imminent threat. Currently, the only case is that Iraq "might have" someday partnered with Bin Laden (even though Muslim Fundamentalists hated Hussein for being a bad Muslim, and separating Mosque and State in Iraq's law) and that Iraq "might have" had the capability for mobile-weapons facilities (which, is possible, but there's no way of knowing if he had the scientific capability or actually attempted).

And also, I'd like to know what new intelligence MI-6 was given that would totally reverse his opinion after he was already skeptical, claiming that the U.S. was falsifying intelligence. The fact that he claimed the U.S. was intentionally putting out poor intelligence at all is still bad, whether we've been doing it all along or not. I don't think you can discredit that. Not the head of MI-6.


Ok, in this one you do not show the other documents or tell how they contradict one another, just that Bush let it out later than planned.
You misread my point. I said Conservatives are the ones claiming 911 and all other investigations contradict the memo.


Ok, I get how "fixed" can mean "established" in Britian, but fixed can also mean that it is being declassified and we making sure they did not have a conflict with the policy. I'd also like to know what policy that is refering to, please. I dont just like seeing one phrase, I like the whole paragrah. For example: "Yes I killed him!" When it was in the paragrah: "Then he pulled out his gun and aimed it at me so I lunged at him with my knife in self defense. Yes I killed him!"
Then read the memo. There's a link on the first page of this thread. The qualifier "but" is still there, and as I said, gramatically, it implies a contradictory nature.

I'm poor, BUT I own a cadillac.
I'm ugly, BUT I have a nice girlfriend.

And so on. So, saying, "They wanted to go to war because of WMDs, BUT they were fixing the intelligence", the context is clear. I don't care what you 'like' to see. The proof of the grammatical syntax has absolutely nothing to do with your personal feelings on the matter.


I don't believe anyone in the Bush admin has stated that "cherry picking your intelligence is not lying" because they are all SMARTER than that! Did you see the GRADES Bush made at Harvard and John Kerry's? Kerry for President would have been a dumb, melted candle for President and would have let every country walk all over us because he cant decide. And when he does decide, it is very possible he may change his mind, again and again.
I wasn't just rebutting Bush's arguments. I was rebutted Conservative arguments against it. One Conservative made that argument in this thread.

Bush was a C+ student in high school, yet he got into Harvard. Furthermore, I'd like to ask you to substantiate your claims about Kerry's grades being lower than Bush's. All I've seen is some idiotic Conservative comparing the test Kerry took to become a Navy Officer, with the test Bush took to become a Air Force Officer, and taking two separate tests, while doing some retarded conversion to I.Q., to claim Bush is smarter than Kerry.


There is NO GAIN from us invading Iraq otherwise, absolutely no incentive like there was at WaterGate. We are not after oil so badly we invade countries. We would tap Alaska LONG before possibly starting WWIII
It would be far easier for Bush to maintain control over Iraqi oil than for him to increase drilling in Alaska. And also, you ignore the fact that Cheney used to be on the board of directors for Haliburton, which recieved more-than-average government contracts, and also, for a while, Cheney was even getting paid by Haliburton, while the government was going to war with Iraq. Yes, the Executive Branch doesn't usually decide who gets the first contract, because it's usually competititve, whichever company among a certain list wants to do it for the cheapest. But in times of military crisis or emergency, the government can sign quick contracts with single companies, to not waste time. Since Bush is the Commander-In-Chief and head of all military, this is not out of his jurisdiction.


Wait a second! The New York Times, the Times, and the 89 congressmen are ALL DEMOCRATS! If any other party believes in this document, please step forward so we dont have to listen to the democrats, PLEASE!
What about the Washington Post, which did a front-page story today? Or CNN, which did a story, this morning, too? Oh, "They're all Liberals!"

If you're going to claim that the New York Times and the Times are Democrats (as well as the Washington Post and CNN), I'd like to ask that you substantiate it. Although the independents, the Reform Party and Green Party, haven't made any comments on it (that we're aware of), I'm absolutely certain that they both are startled by this as well, particularly the Green Party.

Good. She'll make a good senator. Hope she wins Bill Nelson's seat!
You know absolutely nothing about her other than "Republican" and "allegations of voting fraud", and you say she's going to be a good senator.

Holy fucking mother of mary. And Republicans dispute that their supporters are ignorant.

Apparently there wasn't any evidence either! BTW: She did things by the book. The results showed that Bush won Florida so she certified them. Nothing wrong with that.
Yeah. The evidence shows she rigged the election.

BUT THERE'S NO PROOF SHE DID IT, FOR PARTISAN REASONS!!!

Right.

Anyway, here's another tidbit of information suggesting that the intelligence information was purposely falsified. Now, some of you may know that accusations that the head of the White House's Council on Environmental Quality was revising scientific reports to put forth different results. It appears that the CIA was creatively-censoring the report they put out on Niger's uranium. It shows that they clearly knew that the documents were false, but Bush went ahead and PROCLAIMED that Iraq tried to get nukes, anyway.

The original report read:
“Iraq's aggressive attempts to obtain proscribed high-strength aluminum tubes are of significant concern. All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge enrichment program. Most intelligence specialists assess this to be the intended use, but some believe that these tubes are probably intended for conventional weapons programs. Based on tubes of the size Iraq is trying to acquire, a few tens of thousands of centrifuges would be capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a couple of weapons per year.”

When more of the report was declassified, it was found that they had done some 'creative' editing.

One section that was censored, said:
"[The Energy Department] agrees that reconstitution of the nuclear program is underway but assesses that the tubes probably are not part of the program.”

At the bottom of the page, in a lengthy footnote by the State Department's INR, the alternative view states that the agency agrees with the DOE's assessment that the tubes are not meant for use in a gas centrifuge. The footnote reads:
“In INR's view Iraq's efforts to acquire aluminum tubes is central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, but INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors. INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the US Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose. INR considers it far more likely that the tubes are intended for another purpose, most likely the production of artillery rockets. The very large quantities being sought, the way the tubes were tested by the Iraqis, and the atypical lack of attention to operational security in the procurement efforts are among the factors, in addition to the DOE assessment, that lead INR to conclude that the tubes are not intended for use in Iraq's nuclear weapon program.”

Why the hell would the censor that?! You can clearly see, from this example. They were putting out false intelligence.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/archive/2003/nie_iraq_wmd.pdf
http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=1577&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-07-31-nuclear-tubes-iraq-usat_x.htm
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=wissam_al-zahawie

Shrub,

I know more about politics than you do apparently. Stick to philosphy and I'll stick to Political Science.

I know who Harris is. I know she did things by the Book. I know that the FL Supreme Court was bias and kept changing the rules on recounting while a recount was going on.

If you want to argue politics more, I suggest you get your facts straight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubershizasianaxis
We have given you the proof, you just refuse to believe it. You have yet to give us proof that he did not lie. By the way, anyone who supports Bush is a moron.

Hmmmm, you have given us proof you say? All I see are accusations and folly. Let me let you in on something, if I had proof that he didn't lie and you had proof that he did, someone's proof would be wrong, now wouldn't it. They both can't be true. There is no real way you can prove Bush DIDN'T lie because this is a tough subject. Its all about if he KNEW something and only he knows the answer. But I can tell you one thing, get the "document" as you may call it inspected by a true, unbiased professional and I guarantee that it will be declared false.

Check out this interview with Colin Powell.

http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=15572

Shrub,

I know more about politics than you do apparently. Stick to philosphy and I'll stick to Political Science.

I know who Harris is. I know she did things by the Book. I know that the FL Supreme Court was bias and kept changing the rules on recounting while a recount was going on.

If you want to argue politics more, I suggest you get your facts straight.
Then, please, do share some of your wisdom, from the vast, seemingly endless exuberant plethora of political knowledge.

So far, I haven't seen shit, but, "theres no proof!!!1"

"it wuz intepretation!!!"

"theres no proof!!!!!11!"

"HUSEIN WAS AN EVIL MAN!!!"

Hmmmm, you have given us proof you say? All I see are accusations and folly. Let me let you in on something, if I had proof that he didn't lie and you had proof that he did, someone's proof would be wrong, now wouldn't it. They both can't be true. There is no real way you can prove Bush DIDN'T lie because this is a tough subject. Its all about if he KNEW something and only he knows the answer. But I can tell you one thing, get the "document" as you may call it inspected by a true, unbiased professional and I guarantee that it will be declared false.
We do have proof he lied, and you do have proof that he didn't. That doesn't mean we should impeach him, of course, but it's certainly enough to investigate. And it certainly means that the President has some explaining to do.

If you look through this thread, you'll see that there are many Conservatives who even admit Bush lied, but don't care. My father is Conservative and says he thought Bush was lying all along. But that he doesn't care, because Iraq still needed to be taken care of.

Rationalization works in funny ways. Some of the Conservatives justify it by saying lying is okay, and some of them justify it with poor reasoning. Wow.

[Then, please, do share some of your wisdom, from the vast, seemingly endless exuberant plethora of political knowledge.

Nice sarcasm. Its unbecoming

So far, I haven't seen shit, but, "theres no proof!!!1"

No proof of Bush knowingly lying is correct. What he reported to the American public was Bad intelligence. That's been proven throughout this whole thread.

"it wuz intepretation!!!"

LOL! Interpretation of what?

"theres no proof!!!!!11!"

Can you skip the ones please?

"HUSEIN WAS AN EVIL MAN!!!"

And this is actually 100% factual.

No proof of Bush knowingly lying is correct. What he reported to the American public was Bad intelligence. That's been proven throughout this whole thread.
Please, give support as to why you believe that. Just repeatedly begging the question isn't going to make the "truth" set in, or catapult any propaganda.

Not on my watch.


LOL! Interpretation of what?
The claim that the memo is just an "interpretation", therefore, incorrect.

I'll ask this again. No one answered it before. If it was just an "interpretation", what could have MI-6, the Attorney General, and others have said to give him that interpretation?


And this is actually 100% factual.
But totally irrelevant to whether or not Bush lied. As is how great America is.

Are you done, yet?

Are you done, yet?
I will be. As soon as Conservatives answer this question, rationally: If it was just an "interpretation", what could have MI-6, the Attorney General, and others have said to give him that interpretation?

I will be. As soon as Conservatives answer this question, rationally: If it was just an "interpretation", what could have MI-6, the Attorney General, and others have said to give him that interpretation?

At least split it off to another thread. This has gotten so long, it's impossible to follow the debate.

For the sake of god, let this thread DIE!

At least split it off to another thread. This has gotten so long, it's impossible to follow the debate.

For the sake of god, let this thread DIE!
Nawww.

If people are too ignorant to be educated about their opinions and too lazy to skim 30 pages of text or at least read the first few and last few, then that's their problem, not mine.

Now, I want the Conservatives here to answer my question. I've already asked it twice, now.

Are you done, yet?we ll be done when all the truth is out...

so, who was behind Kennedy assasination?

we ll be done when all the truth is out...

so, who was behind Kennedy assasination?


It was...*dramaticpause*


The....


Tune in next week to find out who really killed Kennedy and invented the Marshmellon!

From another forum I visit, someone posted:

I strongly suggest that everyone here sign the petition
done

Republicans howled for Clinton's blood when he got his dick sucked and then lied about it (I only think the bad part was him lying about it, face the music Mr. President). Well, Bush severely degraded the world view of America, cost us over 1,200 dead soldiers and who knows how many Iraqis, and no one seems to want to crucify him. I can't recall hearing anyone talk of impeachment. Oh, but thats because politicians are impartial.
And as far as it being an intelligence agency's 'opinion,' that just doesn't fly. Either for the agency or those listening to what they say. You don't do things based on opinion, you take action on hard facts. If you only have an 'opinion,' then you keep friggin looking.YEAH... Democrats need to stop being wimps...specially the candidates...they need to grow a spine.

I will be. As soon as Conservatives answer this question, rationally: If it was just an "interpretation", what could have MI-6, the Attorney General, and others have said to give him that interpretation?
You mean what gave Matthew Rycroft his interpretation of "fixed" intelligence? I have no idea. This memo only says, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." There is no explanation as to where he came to this conclusion. There isn't even any specificity over who is fixing the intel. Was it Bush or the CIA; who?
There you have it, Shrub. A Conservative answering rationally (at least I think so).

your all a bunch of pinko morons :headbang: . cant you see that whether or not he had them when we went in, he used to have them?? he gased the Kurds for crying out loud!!! and, polish troops DID find weapons, something which the media tried not to cover: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39243

and so what? if he did, or if he didnt, who really cares? he was a dictator. he filled mass graves all of iraq. he was a mass kiler. he deserved to go, and the world is better off without him.

i got a question for all of you, how many resolutions did the UN make against iraq? hmmmmm? what was it...17??!! so why is it that, when the UN (a corrupt organization which all you liberals love) makes resolution after resolution and saddamm basically gives the world the middle finger, the UN decides to back off, every time, but when the USA, one of the powers of the UN, and basically the only thing holding the UN together finally gets enough courage to do what the UN would not, we're the bad guys?!??!!? please explain the logic behind that, will you?


its about damn time someone said it

... There isn't even any specificity over who is fixing the intel. Was it Bush or the CIA; who?
good question...here is another good one...

heads are rolling at the CIA and Brit spy agencies...

Do these head belong to the the people that "fixed" the intel???

or do they belong to or to the whistleblowers...the people that was opposed to the WMD fiasco?

Who got the promoted and who got the demotions?

Are you done, yet?

Apparently not! LOL

For the sake of god, let this thread DIE!for the sake of God think of the children :D :D :D

for the sake of God think of the children :D :D :D


Will somebody please think of the children!!!

What I have noticed is that Bush's republicans always want proof about something we so call "claim" and thus say that we have no proof. The ironic thing is, we have given all the proof we need and these republicans have given NOTHING. VIRTUALLY NOTHING! We have documents and documents of written proof. Hell, we even have proof in terms of movies. Ever heard of Farenheit 9/11? Of course, all you republicans would say "O all that stuff is untrue and opinion." The only thing the republicans have as so called proof is Bush's word against ours. And automatically, that is considered proof. Flawed logic? I think so. We have a tape of Bush being a friggin moron that is shown in Fahrenheit 9/11 as well when he sits in the classroom for 7 minutes doing ABOSLUTELY NOTHING after the S.S agents told him that the planes hit the WTC towers. Yet that isnt valid proof. President Shrub gave like a billion sites (exaggeration) worth of proof throughout this whole debate. Yet that isnt valid proof. So automatically, its the republicans word over ours. You hypocrites tell us not to flame you guys when you blatently go and flame us calling us irrational lunatic or ignorant people. I suggest you people start providing proof OR SHUT UP!

I will be. As soon as Conservatives answer this question, rationally: If it was just an "interpretation", what could have MI-6, the Attorney General, and others have said to give him that interpretation?

MI-6=British
It was the British Attorney General

If this was so important, it would've carried more wait. If it was so important, Kerry would've brought this up during the election and he didn't :rolleyes:

It is only one man's opinion and that person is British and not American.

its about damn time someone said it

Oh my god, shut up you fool. Dont make comments without reading this whole debate.

Nawww.

If people are too ignorant to be educated about their opinions and too lazy to skim 30 pages of text or at least read the first few and last few, then that's their problem, not mine.

Now, I want the Conservatives here to answer my question. I've already asked it twice, now.

Just like we have been asking you for proof that Bush knowingly lied. We've been asking you this long before this question arose. Answer ours first.

What I have noticed is that Bush's republicans always want proof about something we so call "claim" and thus say that we have no proof. The ironic thing is, we have given all the proof we need and these republicans have given NOTHING. VIRTUALLY NOTHING! We have documents and documents of written proof. Hell, we even have proof in terms of movies. Ever heard of Farenheit 9/11? Of course, all you republicans would say "O all that stuff is untrue and opinion." The only thing the republicans have as so called proof is Bush's word against ours. And automatically, that is considered proof. Flawed logic? I think so. We have a tape of Bush being a friggin moron that is shown in Fahrenheit 9/11 as well when he sits in the classroom for 7 minutes doing ABOSLUTELY NOTHING after the S.S agents told him that the planes hit the WTC towers. Yet that isnt valid proof. President Shrub gave like a billion sites (exaggeration) worth of proof throughout this whole debate. Yet that isnt valid proof. So automatically, its the republicans word over ours. You hypocrites tell us not to flame you guys when you blatently go and flame us calling us irrational lunatic or ignorant people. I suggest you people start providing proof OR SHUT UP!

Is there a paragraph nazi in the house?

on david kelly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly

Is there a paragraph nazi in the house?

LOL!! ;) :D

You mean what gave Matthew Rycroft his interpretation of "fixed" intelligence? I have no idea. This memo only says, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." There is no explanation as to where he came to this conclusion. There isn't even any specificity over who is fixing the intel. Was it Bush or the CIA; who?
There you have it, Shrub. A Conservative answering rationally (at least I think so).
That's not "all the memo says." In the paragraph mentioning that the intelligence was fixed, the only groups\individuals he mentions are Bush and the National Security Council. Now, we assume Bush is in control of himself (obviously). And it's highly-unlikely that Bush's own cabinet was lying to him.

Also, to further dispute that this is "interpretation", I'd like to break down the format of the memo for you, to explain, without a doubt, how it a summary.

If any of you bother to read the memo, you'll see how it's organized, in a way that it summarizes each top government officials' opinion. That's its format. It was not just a freeform essay on policy that Rycroft wrote. It was a summary, whereby he went through all the information each official had stated or written, one by one, and summarized it.

I'll give you a breakdown of how the memo is constructed, so that it's more clear that it isn't Rycroft's interpretation, whatsoever.

Chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee, John Scarlett's Assessment:
"John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based."

Chief of MI-6's Assessment:
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

Chief of Defence Staff's Assessment:
"CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary's Assessment:
"The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections."

The Foreign Secretary's Assessment:
"The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."

The Attorney General's Assessment:
"The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change."

The Prime Minister's Assessment:
"The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work."

Various Disputes with the Prime Minister's Assessment:
"On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush."

Conclusions:

"Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers."
When you look at the construction of the essay, it's clearly a summary. Not an essay. Not a term-paper. Not Matthew Rycroft's own little political commentary, but a summary of each British government official's assessment of the situation.

Conservatives, I'd like to know: Where in the essay does Rycroft say, "in my opinion", "I believe", or even "I think"?

Kerry would've brought this up during the election and he didn't .Kerry is a wimp...and the Democrats that picked him are ******s

Kerry is a wimp...and the Democrats the picked him are ******s

You'll get no arguement from me regarding Kerry.

Kerry is a wimp...and the Democrats the picked him are ******s

O wow, this guy has a GREAT arguement. He is also flaming the democrats. So if I were to flame him back right now, I would be marked for flaming. THE HYPOCRISY!!!

O wow, this guy has a GREAT arguement. He is also flaming the democrats. So if I were to flame him back right now, I would be marked for flaming. THE HYPOCRISY!!!

Dude, I've tossed insults right back for lines like that that insult any party. I haven't been warned yet! LOL

and so what? if he did, or if he didnt, who really cares? he was a dictator. he filled mass graves all of iraq. he was a mass kiler. he deserved to go, and the world is better off without him.


Eh, still doesn't give the right to invade the country, throw it into more turmoil than it was in and make a right mess of it.

Anyway, i'm not a pinko. my skin is a geeky shade of white!

Oh, and just for the record, I discount all posts conatining both question marks and exclamation marks in a single sentence.
did you know that!??!?!!?!??!?!?shift/!

Eh, still doesn't give the right to invade the country, throw it into more turmoil than it was in and make a right mess of it.

Anyway, i'm not a pinko. my skin is a geeky shade of white!

Oh, and just for the record, I discount all posts conatining both question marks and exclamation marks in a single sentence.
did you know that!??!?!!?!??!?!?shift/!

I don't see a single exclamation point in his whole post that you quoted.

I don't see a single exclamation point in his whole post that you quoted.
He meant in the entire thread.

Instead of trifling over minor points like that, Corneliu, I'd like you to address the format of the DSM, which I clearly laid out.

He meant in the entire thread.

Instead of trifling over minor points like that, Corneliu, I'd like you to address the format of the DSM, which I clearly laid out.

I'm still waiting on proof that Bush knowingly lied.

I'm still waiting on proof that Bush knowingly lied.

You are kidding right? DID YOU READ THE WHOLE OF PAGE 39?????????? HE GAVE HIS WHOLE REBUTTAL TO YOU AND ALL THE REPUBLICANS SUPPORTING BUSH. HE GAVE THE SITES SUPPORTING HIS REBUTTALS. OF COURSE NONE OF THAT IS PROOF SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU DONT READ IT. STOP WAITING AND LOOK FOR THE DAMN PROOF. WE HAVE GIVEN IT IN THIS 41 PAGE DEBATE BUT YOU REPUBLICANS REFUSE TO ACKNOWLODGE IT AND READ IT!!! AT LEAST COME UP WITH A COUNTER ARGUEMENT!!

By the way, this genuninly proves that all Bush supporters are all scumbags. For the quadrillionth time, READ THE LAST COUPLE OF PAGES!!! Corneliu, you seem to butt into these petty arguements that some of us have here, but you refuse to say anything about the major topic of this thread. You skip it and ask for proof.

I am still waiting for proof that Bush did not lie.

You are kidding right? DID YOU READ THE WHOLE OF PAGE 39??????????

Yes I have and you don't have to be excessive with the question marks. One is sufficient for your purpose.

HE GAVE HIS WHOLE REBUTTAL TO YOU AND ALL THE REPUBLICANS SUPPORTING BUSH. HE GAVE THE SITES SUPPORTING HIS REBUTTALS. OF COURSE NONE OF THAT IS PROOF SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU DONT READ IT.

I'm saying what I'm saying because Bush didn't knowingly lie. Anyone with ears and eyes can see that he didn't knowingly lie. If he did knowingly lie, it would've been exposed LONG before now. It hasn't been exposed with this memo nor with anything else. He had faulty intelligence and the intel department got worked over because of it.

No need to shout either. Its not a way to get your point across.

STOP WAITING AND LOOK FOR THE DAMN PROOF.

Since there's no proof to look for, no.

WE HAVE GIVEN IT IN THIS 41 PAGE DEBATE BUT YOU REPUBLICANS REFUSE TO ACKNOWLODGE IT AND READ IT!!! AT LEAST COME UP WITH A COUNTER ARGUEMENT!!

We have. We've stated it numerous times through all 41 pages. You have ignored our counter arguements because they don't fit your mentality.

By the way, this genuninly proves that all Bush supporters are all scumbags.

This just genuninly proves that all Dem supporters are brainwashed fools.

For the quadrillionth time, READ THE LAST COUPLE OF PAGES!!!

We have. No substance to anything posted. We launched our counter arguements and you ignored them or hurled insults at those that have differing opinions.

Corneliu, you seem to butt into these petty arguements that some of us have here, but you refuse to say anything about the major topic of this thread. You skip it and ask for proof.

And I have replied to the major topic of this thread several times. I've pointed out that the Intel was bad and that those responsible are no longer working in intelligence. I also pointed out that it was Bush that ordered the investigation and Congress approved of it and that investigation found the intelligence to be bad. Why do you think all the intel departments answer to one man?

I am still waiting for proof that Bush did not lie.

I'm waiting for proof that he did. The burden is really on you.

Isn't there supposed to be a 3,000 post cap on threads? This one's nearing twice that much! :eek:

Isn't there supposed to be a 3,000 post cap on threads? This one's nearing twice that much! :eek:

Actually this is post number 619 on my side of the computer terminal! LOL!

Anyway, Bush didn't knowingly lie so I"m not worried about this petition one bit. If it makes the left happy to have it done, then so be it. It isn't going to lead to Bush's impeachment.

<snip>

Alright, my keyboard rail thing just broke and I'm supporting it with my knees so I'm more pissed off than usual, but I'll try not to flame.

Maybe you should look at all the facts before you jump to conclusions huh?

One thing many Republicans seem to forget, hence the term "reactionary" the exreme right-wing is dubbed. If an ant bites them, they don't think and nuke the colony. It's something we all want to do, but those with foresight refrain from. I guess the ant analogy could be used with 9/11 and Bush's nearly instantaneous reaction to want to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, but only the latter was the source. I will get into a long, long essay on the Bush family in a couple of weeks hopefully so there is no need to expound on that now. I will only state facts that need to be stated, such as the lust for money rules above anything else, like morals. Prescott Bush continued to support the Nazi regime (not ideals) because he was making money. I already went into that and I will go into it again, but not now.

In the Summer of 1974, George Herbert Walker Bush hired Lee Atwater and political mastermind and evil genius Karl Rove and began building the political network that would carry him and his son to the White House. Once the first Gulf War was fought, and for good reason: getting back at Saddam Hussein for using WMDs on his own people, solving the Hussein question once and for all, the Project for New American Century was created in the mid-late 1990's. Several members are/were prominent in the Bush II Administration, such as Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Dan Quayle and more. Their mission is to use America's powers it acquired after the allied victory in WWII to spread American ideals throught the world by using the military as a first resort.

Once Bush 43 was successfully appointed President of the United States, Karl Rove began the even larger task: running for reelection. 9/11, though probably not fully carried out by the Bush Administration, but nonetheless, a Godsend to their cause, gave the "patriotic" spark needed to complete what they set up to do. Through many manipulative tactics after 9/11, the majority of Americans believed Saddam had connection with Al Qaida (I quit on the 23489 ways to spell this name). Rove instills fear in the public, I'm not getting into all this, it's a whole different topic I'll probably get into later. They he tells us to hate the Democratic resistence, then we hear that we'll be safe from the fabricated threat if we just go along with Bush. In five easy steps (I skipped some), we accept perpetual war, totalitarian regime and loss of personal freedoms.

I'm getting tired and I'll probably think of things to add/delete/change later, but for now, screw it.

*SNIP*

Nice Rant. I'm not going to take the time to nitpick it apart because I am tired and it is nearly 11:00 PM

Once Bush 43 was successfully appointed President of the United States,

Ok, this is patently false. I suggest you read up on the Supreme Court Opinion regarding the facts of this case before you make a very false statement. The Supreme Court found that the Florida Supreme Court was changing the rules of recount while a recount was going on.

Karl Rove began the even larger task: running for reelection. 9/11, though probably not fully carried out by the Bush Administration, but nonetheless, a Godsend to their cause, gave the "patriotic" spark needed to complete what they set up to do.

Now this is a conspiracy theory if I ever heard it though Running for re-election is more than likely not a conspiracy theory at all because once elected, you do have to think about re-election.

Through many manipulative tactics after 9/11, the majority of Americans believed Saddam had connection with Al Qaida (I quit on the 23489 ways to spell this name).

Its spelled Al Qaeda. As for manipulative tactics, what precisely where those?

They he tells us to hate the Democratic resistence, then we hear that we'll be safe from the fabricated threat if we just go along with Bush.

Another conspiracy theory here. One that has no proof to it whatsoever.

In five easy steps (I skipped some), we accept perpetual war, totalitarian regime and loss of personal freedoms.

We just had our primaries. We are having an election in November. Congressional and Senate Elections in 2006 and another Presidential election in 2008. Don't see a totalitarian regime here. As for personal Freedoms, what freedoms have we lost?

Nice Rant. I'm not going to take the time to nitpick it apart because I am tired and it is nearly 11:00 PM
Too bad you still nitpicked it apart, nice job going back on your word.

Ok, this is patently false. I suggest you read up on the Supreme Court Opinion regarding the facts of this case before you make a very false statement. The Supreme Court found that the Florida Supreme Court was changing the rules of recount while a recount was going on.
I'm not getting into the 2000 election again. I think many of us accept the fact Bush didn't win without outside help, and if you don't then you're part of a fringe conspiracy theory group that says Bush was rightfully elected in 2000.

Now this is a conspiracy theory if I ever heard it though Running for re-election is more than likely not a conspiracy theory at all because once elected, you do have to think about re-election. If I'm understanding your convoluted rant correctly, you need not campaign for reelection 4 years before your second term.

Its spelled Al Qaeda. As for manipulative tactics, what precisely where those? I detailed them further in my rant, but basically, you know what? Screw this, I keep on repeating things over and over and over again but you still don't get it. I guess that's why Bush has to "say things again and again and again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda." If you can't see the manipulative tactics Rove is using on you with as open a mind as you can get it, I'm sorry.

Another conspiracy theory here. One that has no proof to it whatsoever.
You know what, it's not even worth the time. I'd give you the quotes of Bush making us afraid of a fabricated threat, I could go into a long-ass rant, and all you'd do is ask for proof. Even though it's spelled right out for you, you still need proof. Did you need proof that Saddam had WMDs? No. Did you need proof that Bush didn't steal the election? No. Did you need proof that discredited anything I said? No. Yet somehow, you need 100% solid proof, to believe anything I say, no matter how convincing the argument, no matter how closely the strings match up, you refuse to tie them together.

We just had our primaries. We are having an election in November. Congressional and Senate Elections in 2006 and another Presidential election in 2008. Don't see a totalitarian regime here. As for personal Freedoms, what freedoms have we lost?
It's hard to see oppression if your eyes are closed. Open your eyes and look at the world, man! Put 2 and 2 together!

Don't bother. Corneliu is all but a card-carrying member of the Bush Personality Cult. Only such an individual could continually deny or try to render observations with strong hintings irrelevant with rhetoric.

Don't bother. Corneliu is all but a card-carrying member of the Bush Personality Cult. Only such an individual could continually deny or try to render observations with strong hintings irrelevant with rhetoric.

Haha, sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo true!! ;)

Has anyone read Animal Farm by George Orwell? The society the animals live in under Napoleon (Napoleon is a pig, literally) is a totalitarian society. The Bush administration is doing almost exactly what Napoleon is doing. Now using your reasoning abilities, you would realize that the Bush administration is a totalitarian regime. Of course, I left out how Bush is doing exactly what Napoleon is doing because I know that if I tell you Corneliu, you will blatently deny everything and say I have no proof even though Achtung, Gauthier, President Shrub would beg to differ. We cant argue with close-minded people like you.

Don't bother. Corneliu is all but a card-carrying member of the Bush Personality Cult. Only such an individual could continually deny or try to render observations with strong hintings irrelevant with rhetoric.
While I believe that too, Gaulthier, that's also an ad-hominem.

Of course, with the fact that Corneliu's been begging the question and not responding to my points for like a day now, other than with, "Give me evidence", I think you can do that with a clear conscience. ;)

Of course, with the fact that Corneliu's been begging the question and not responding to my points for like a day now, other than with, "Give me evidence"

Its on the NeoCons Handbook. :D

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/trall/2005/trall050516.gif

Its on the NeoCons Handbook. :D

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/trall/2005/trall050516.gif

LOL!!!! :D ;)

I'm not getting into the 2000 election again. I think many of us accept the fact Bush didn't win without outside help, and if you don't then you're part of a fringe conspiracy theory group that says Bush was rightfully elected in 2000.

Sorry, I had to quote this.. very amusing.

guess Im in a fringe conspiracy group... well unless of course you count the voters as an outside group lol.

Corneliu, if you return to this thread I will gladly assist you.

In the meanwhile, it is late, and sleep is beginning to sound very nice.

How liberals come up with their talking points:

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/SpinningBlame-X.gif

:p

Sorry, I had to quote this.. very amusing.

guess Im in a fringe conspiracy group... well unless of course you count the voters as an outside group lol.

Corneliu, if you return to this thread I will gladly assist you.

In the meanwhile, it is late, and sleep is beginning to sound very nice.
According to Gallup polls, 1 in 5 Americans believed the election was fraudulent. I think Achtung's statement was extremely exaggerated (possibly facetious), but on the other hand, it would be ridiculous to claim that 1 in 5 Americans are "conspiracy-theorists." 20% of Americans. That's a lot of people.

How liberals come up with their talking points:

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/SpinningBlame-X.gif

:p
#1. That cartoon is about the "conspiracy theory" (which I agree is a conspiracy theory) that Bush allowed 9\11 to happen.
#2. The Downing Street memo wasn't uncorroborated. There have been several documented cases where the intelligence said there was "dispute" about the facts (and the fact that there was dispute was CENSORED without reason), but the Bush administration came out and said they were absolutely certain. Also, the Sunday Herald and the BBC have spoken with numerous British intelligence officials that claimed the intelligence was fraudulent. There's also a new memo out, suggesting foul-play with intelligence.
#3. The Downing Street memo wasn't non-specific. It summarized the statements of specific individuals, at a certain point and time, as well as clearly saying that the British government needed to create the right "political context" to allow the war to appear to legal, in the eyes of the public.

I started another thread, containing a reference guide to the Downing Street memo's information. Please review it, and you'll see that there's plenty of corroboration.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=425456

This just shows Republicans and democrats can't debate, sad really :(

This just shows Republicans and democrats can't debate, sad really :(
It sure is a good thing I'm not a Democrat!

It sure is a good thing I'm not a Democrat!

well I'm neither so I have the pleasure of being impartial

well I'm neither so I have the pleasure of being impartial

It's a good thing that Shrubbery is not impartial... ;)

It's a good thing that Shrubbery is not impartial... ;)
Hey, I'm pro-life and against gun-control.

Don't I get to be part of your special club?

I want my secret "memo decoder" ring, damn it.

Hey, I'm pro-life and against gun-control.

Don't I get to be part of your special club?

I want my secret "memo decoder" ring, damn it.

No. I'm pro-choice and pro-choice.

If some woman wants an abortion, it's fine. If she doesn't, that's fine.
If someone wants to own and carry a gun, it's fine (as long as they're not a felon).
The vast majority of violent felons should be executed on the first offense.
Wars are sometimes necessary. But they should be fought with volunteer armies, not draftees. Choice, you know.
And citizenship should be voluntary, not compulsory. It should be a responsibility, not a right. Choice, you know.

Might say I'm pro-death, pro-choice. Not exactly your typical card-carrying Republican.

Too bad you still nitpicked it apart, nice job going back on your word.

What I responded too had to be responded too. I didn't nitpick apart the first portion of your post. Incase you haven't noticed, I only went after the bottom portion that is full of crap.

I'm not getting into the 2000 election again. I think many of us accept the fact Bush didn't win without outside help, and if you don't then you're part of a fringe conspiracy theory group that says Bush was rightfully elected in 2000.

Only the liberal Left have accepted this fact. I'm NOT apart of any conspiracy fringe group. I'm just a voter who studied 2000 because it constently came up during the 2004 campaign (bad move by democrats) and I have studied every court opinion on this case from Florida Supreme Court (SIX, count'em SIX Democrats) to the Supreme Court Decision. I can easily find the opinion to destroy this line of logic.

If I'm understanding your convoluted rant correctly, you need not campaign for reelection 4 years before your second term.

If your president you have to think about it and begin to plan for your possible opponets.

I detailed them further in my rant, but basically, you know what? Screw this, I keep on repeating things over and over and over again but you still don't get it.

I'm sorry? What were you repeating again? Oh yea, nothing. Nothing that deals with facts anyway. Go on believing what the liberal brainwash machine feeds you because apparently, you don't understand anything else.

I guess that's why Bush has to "say things again and again and again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda."

He has too because of the liberal media trying to distort things like Bush's Privatization Account. Did you know that a recent poll of COLLEGE Students found that 70% of College Students favor some type of it? 40% of those are *gasp* L-I-B-E-R-A-L!

If you can't see the manipulative tactics Rove is using on you with as open a mind as you can get it, I'm sorry.

Then I guess Rove isn't using anything on me. Amazing how a few facts tossed your way and you claim manipulative tactics. When asked about them, you can't answer. I guess none are being used. I guess those tactics are in the minds of liberals.

You know what, it's not even worth the time. I'd give you the quotes of Bush making us afraid of a fabricated threat, I could go into a long-ass rant, and all you'd do is ask for proof.

The only thing I'm hearing from is that we have to stay the course in Iraq and that pulling out now is not a good thing and that is correct. Its not a good thing to pull out of Iraq. Yes, terrorism is still a threat. Something else that Bush has said. I also heard him say that we need to go on with our lives and he's right about that. Ok, I'm still looking for a fabricated threat.

Even though it's spelled right out for you, you still need proof. Did you need proof that Saddam had WMDs? No.

Your right. I didn't care about the WMD. I always thought it sketchy but you know what? I didn't care. He needed to be removed from power because of his human rights violations and the fact that he has constently ignored the UN.

Did you need proof that Bush didn't steal the election? No. Did you need proof that discredited anything I said? No. Yet somehow, you need 100% solid proof, to believe anything I say, no matter how convincing the argument, no matter how closely the strings match up, you refuse to tie them together.

1. He didn't steal it. I have a Supreme Court Opinion to prove it too.
2. Don't need them when I know that you are not spouting truth.
3. Your not convincing anyone with your falsehoods and dribble. The strings don't match anything here.

It's hard to see oppression if your eyes are closed. Open your eyes and look at the world, man! Put 2 and 2 together!

Answer my question. You just dodged it so I guess you were lying about that. We just had a primary here. We'll have the elections in November. We have Congressional Elections in 2006 and another Presidential one in 2008 (Bush can't run again you know)! I'm not seeing a totalitarian regime. I am also waiting on an answer on what freedoms we have lost.

It's a good thing that Shrubbery is not impartial... ;)

well we gotta have some opinionated people but I'm not sure which way to go on this debate, in my heart I wanna take a swing at Bush but my head is questioning the importance of the whole memo thing at all and whether the people who are making a big deal of this have alternative motives.

Sorry, I had to quote this.. very amusing.

guess Im in a fringe conspiracy group... well unless of course you count the voters as an outside group lol.

Corneliu, if you return to this thread I will gladly assist you.

In the meanwhile, it is late, and sleep is beginning to sound very nice.

Thank you Tarith. I am returning to this thread but that just had to be responded too. I've debated 2000 enough but it still comes up here and I have to continuously wack these liberals regarding the facts of 2000.

BTW: Anyone see proof that Bush knowingly lied here? I haven't seen the evidence yet and I've been hunting.

According to Gallup polls, 1 in 5 Americans believed the election was fraudulent. I think Achtung's statement was extremely exaggerated (possibly facetious), but on the other hand, it would be ridiculous to claim that 1 in 5 Americans are "conspiracy-theorists." 20% of Americans. That's a lot of people.

ANd that leaves 80% that it wasn't Fraudulent. That's even MORE people. :rolleyes:

The only thing I'm hearing from is that we have to stay the course in Iraq and that pulling out now is not a good thing and that is correct. Its not a good thing to pull out of Iraq. Yes, terrorism is still a threat. Something else that Bush has said. I also heard him say that we need to go on with our lives and he's right about that. Ok, I'm still looking for a fabricated threat.


I would like to pick up on this, how many terrorist attacks have America suffered in the past say 5 years because I can only think of 2 and one of them failed.

well we gotta have some opinionated people but I'm not sure which way to go on this debate, in my heart I wanna take a swing at Bush but my head is questioning the importance of the whole memo thing at all and whether the people who are making a big deal of this have alternative motives.

Gataway, there is an alterior motive here. To discredit Bush and Blair for using faulty intel to prosecute a war with Iraq. Not to mention, some people on Capitol Hill want Bush impeached for "lying". Wouldn't do them much good to impeach Bush, they just get Cheney. LOL :D :p

I would like to pick up on this, how many terrorist attacks have America suffered in the past say 5 years because I can only think of 2 and one of them failed.

I also would like to know how many we thwarted that we don't know about. That's a number I want to know but no one will talk about that because of.....

National Security. :(

Shrubby old boy, you still have issues.

Gataway, there is an alterior motive here. To discredit Bush and Blair for using faulty intel to prosecute a war with Iraq. Not to mention, some people on Capitol Hill want Bush impeached for "lying". Wouldn't do them much good to impeach Bush, they just get Cheney. LOL :D :p
They'd better wait for 2008... they'll possibly get Hillary then. :p

Gataway, there is an alterior motive here. To discredit Bush and Blair for using faulty intel to prosecute a war with Iraq. Not to mention, some people on Capitol Hill want Bush impeached for "lying". Wouldn't do them much good to impeach Bush, they just get Cheney. LOL :D :p

There's always an alterior motive, the question is do the ends sacrifice the means? If the end result is Cheney for you lot and John Prescott for the UK I'd rather leave this can of worms unopened.

I also would like to know how many we thwarted that we don't know about. That's a number I want to know but no one will talk about that because of.....

National Security. :(

but there has been one succesful attempt in 5 years? I'm not denying the severity of this but its not like your living in Fallujah is it?

I would like to pick up on this, how many terrorist attacks have America suffered in the past say 5 years because I can only think of 2 and one of them failed.
Do you have in mind the 11 September attacks and the case of Padilla?

Do you have in mind the 11 September attacks and the case of Padilla?

I was thinking Richard Reid the shoe bomber, he was on a plane from France towards the US

I was thinking Richard Reid the shoe bomber, he was on a plane from France towards the US
Oh... I've forgotten Reid.

They'd better wait for 2008... they'll possibly get Hillary then. :p

I actually doubt it. Especially if Billy boy gets UN Secretary-General.

There's always an alterior motive, the question is do the ends sacrifice the means? If the end result is Cheney for you lot and John Prescott for the UK I'd rather leave this can of worms unopened.

LOL! What's funny is that Cheney doesn't want the job. As for Prescott.. I know nothing about him so I won't comment.

but there has been one succesful attempt in 5 years? I'm not denying the severity of this but its not like your living in Fallujah is it?

No I'm not living in Falluja. Your right that there has only been one successful attempt in 5 years but it doesn't keep me from thinking on how many we thwarted though.

well we gotta have some opinionated people but I'm not sure which way to go on this debate, in my heart I wanna take a swing at Bush but my head is questioning the importance of the whole memo thing at all and whether the people who are making a big deal of this have alternative motives.
I believe that if the memo were really something of substance, and there was anyone or anything to truly corroborate it, the Blair government would already have fallen, and the Bush administration would already be on the way out.

The fact that the media here hasn't touched it makes me think that there's something unsubstantiated about it.

No I'm not living in Falluja. Your right that there has only been one successful attempt in 5 years but it doesn't keep me from thinking on how many we thwarted though.

My point is the worry of getting killed in a terrorist attack should not be troubling the daily lives of Americans. I think the odds of you getting hit by lightning are still greater.

My point is the worry of getting killed in a terrorist attack should not be troubling the daily lives of Americans. I think the odds of you getting hit by lightning are still greater.

Oh I'm not concerned Getaway. I just love to deal with statistics. :D

My point is the worry of getting killed in a terrorist attack should not be troubling the daily lives of Americans. I think the odds of you getting hit by lightning are still greater.

The odds of having a nuclear plant melt down are also quite remote - and the chance of such a melt down happenning close enough to you in your lifetime to actually harm you is even lower.

But that doesn't stop people from pressuring politicians to keep nuclear power plants out of their area - or country.

This is what I mean by political risk. Political risk is not the same as actual risk. You are in more danger from the stairs in your home, or the bathtub, than you are most other things. But that doesn't make people run out and demand that laws be passed to eliminate stairs, or make super-safe bathtubs mandatory.

The problem today is this: your constituents don't want to die of terrorism. They don't have a problem with crashing in their car on their own, but no flaming death from airliners, thank you very much.

This is why the US is so paranoid about WMD. The chance is VERY remote - but, if it actually occurs, the political ramifications will be incredible - a political risk so high that no sane politician would take it.

The odds of having a nuclear plant melt down are also quite remote - and the chance of such a melt down happenning close enough to you in your lifetime to actually harm you is even lower.

But that doesn't stop people from pressuring politicians to keep nuclear power plants out of their area - or country.

This is what I mean by political risk. Political risk is not the same as actual risk. You are in more danger from the stairs in your home, or the bathtub, than you are most other things. But that doesn't make people run out and demand that laws be passed to eliminate stairs, or make super-safe bathtubs mandatory.

The problem today is this: your constituents don't want to die of terrorism. They don't have a problem with crashing in their car on their own, but no flaming death from airliners, thank you very much.

This is why the US is so paranoid about WMD. The chance is VERY remote - but, if it actually occurs, the political ramifications will be incredible - a political risk so high that no sane politician would take it.

It just annoys me that the whole campaign seemed to be run on fear

It just annoys me that the whole campaign seemed to be run on fear
Fear is the basis of politics.

If you are the incumbent, you are supposed to make the voters fear what will happen if you are no longer in charge, and the new guy gets elected.

If you are the new guy, you are supposed to make the voters think that things are screwed up, and they should fear how much worse things will be.

Like I said, the remote prospect of WMD usage (say, smallpox) makes the political risk unacceptable. You have to be seen bombing and killing and occupying and taking away liberties and doing something.

If not, and something bad actually happens, you and your political chums will be tarred and feathered in short order.

Fear is the basis of politics.

If you are the incumbent, you are supposed to make the voters fear what will happen if you are no longer in charge, and the new guy gets elected.

If you are the new guy, you are supposed to make the voters think that things are screwed up, and they should fear how much worse things will be.

Like I said, the remote prospect of WMD usage (say, smallpox) makes the political risk unacceptable. You have to be seen bombing and killing and occupying and taking away liberties and doing something.

If not, and something bad actually happens, you and your political chums will be tarred and feathered in short order.

Maybe in America, but negative campaining isn't as bad in the UK, I agree that there was negative campaining but terrorism wasn't mentioned once. The major debating points were health, education and crime with a significant look at the economy and whether further involvement in Europe was needed.
The war in Iraq was mentioned but as only the Lib dems were against it, it wasn't a major talking point.

I detailed them further in my rant, but basically, you know what? Screw this, I keep on repeating things over and over and over again but you still don't get it. I guess that's why Bush has to "say things again and again and again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda." If you can't see the manipulative tactics Rove is using on you with as open a mind as you can get it, I'm sorry.
Some posters do seem to employ that annoying habit. They either don't get it, or don't want to get it, which allows them to perpetuate their propaganda.

If you say something over and over again, ad nauseum, then it must be true? Either that, they want it to be true so that they don't have to bear the consequences of being wrong. Usually, these posters cannot prove their point with hard facts and offer only their opinion, which when repeated enough times, they believe in their own mind to be true. It is hard to debate with people of that mindset.

As far as Bush is concerned, he is a master of repetition to get his point across, whether it be right, wrong, or indifferent. Here is an example of that:

Bush to invoke memory of Sept. 11 every chance he gets from now until election (http://www.freepressed.com/911_03.htm)

If anyone has a link to the full speech, I would appreciate it.

In Bush's declaration of war against Iraq (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/19/sprj.irq.int.bush.transcript/), he used the word threat 3 times, but one stands out. Where he used the word in conjunction to the safety of American citizens, in what I see as planting a seed in the minds of the viewers that Iraq and 9/11 were linked:

We will meet that threat now with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of firefighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.

Keep persuing the noble cause for truth Achtung 45. :)

I believe that if the memo were really something of substance, and there was anyone or anything to truly corroborate it, the Blair government would already have fallen, and the Bush administration would already be on the way out.

The fact that the media here hasn't touched it makes me think that there's something unsubstantiated about it.
The media in the US has "touched it", but it obviously has not been widespread. This in itself does not automatically make it "unsubstantiated"?

This isn't the first news article to report of underhanded tactics by the Bush administration in regards to Iraq:

O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/)

Perhaps as more "evidence" surfaces, there will be a push by the American public to pursue the truth, especially since the majority of Americans now believe that the war in Iraq was "not worth it".

The media in the US has "touched it", but it obviously has not been widespread. This in itself does not automatically make it "unsubstantiated"?

This isn't the first news article to report of underhanded tactics by the Bush administration in regards to Iraq:

O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/)

Perhaps as more "evidence" surfaces, there will be a push by the American public to pursue the truth, especially since the majority of Americans now believe that the war in Iraq was "not worth it".

You should also consider something else.

Since Vietnam, the US public does not want to get involved in a war where we leave with our tail between our legs. That is the enduring legacy of Vietnam. What people want to know is whether or not we're running away.

If Bush were to pull our troops out unconditionally now, in a gesture of running away, no Republican would be elected to office for years.

The war can be hard, not worth it, and even founded on a mistake.

Once we're in there, we can't leave in any way that cannot be spun as a victory. It's political suicide otherwise.

You should also consider something else.

Since Vietnam, the US public does not want to get involved in a war where we leave with our tail between our legs. That is the enduring legacy of Vietnam. What people want to know is whether or not we're running away.

If Bush were to pull our troops out unconditionally now, in a gesture of running away, no Republican would be elected to office for years.

The war can be hard, not worth it, and even founded on a mistake.

Once we're in there, we can't leave in any way that cannot be spun as a victory. It's political suicide otherwise.

So the only reason Bush is in Iraq is to save face?

What happened to liberating the Iraqi people? The problem is if allied troops were brought back home Iraq could possibly, some say quite probably fall into civil war which would further de-stabalise the area.

So the only reason Bush is in Iraq is to save face?

What happened to liberating the Iraqi people? The problem is if allied troops were brought back home Iraq could possibly, some say quite probably fall into civil war which would further de-stabalise the area.

No, not to save face.

We may be there for any number of reasons, but I feel the most important one was the fact that 1800 gallons of anthrax was unaccounted for, and there was no way to verify what happened to it (as proven by the interrogation of Taha and the subsequent investigation of her statements).

UNSCOM, not the US, said the anthrax was there.

Given the anthrax attacks in the US, and the legacy of 9-11 (what happens when a government does nothing when bad guys make their plans), this became a politically unacceptable risk (all out of proportion to its real risk).

Put yourself in their shoes - you can prove the anthrax was made, but you don't know where it is. Kept contained, anthrax lasts for decades. You don't know if they dumped it, used it on prisoners (some of which they did), or are keeping it. You have no way to find out.

And on the remotely possible side, we have some anthrax attacks already occuring - and the possibility of more. Are you going to take that chance?

People say that Bush may have known 9-11 was going to happen. I don't believe he did, but some do.

Imagine what would have happened if Bush had said, "no, I know we're worried about the missing anthrax, but it's not a real risk". And then there had been an anthrax attack. You don't need a missile to do it.

A tape recording of something like that would force him to resign, and probably destroy the Republican Party.

So it's a politically unacceptable risk not to invade. And it's a politically suicidal thing to start a war and then run away.

I believe that if the memo were really something of substance, and there was anyone or anything to truly corroborate it, the Blair government would already have fallen, and the Bush administration would already be on the way out.

The fact that the media here hasn't touched it makes me think that there's something unsubstantiated about it.

The memos have both been substantiated (there was a new one released this weekend (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100723.html?sub=new)). They have been authenticated and not even Bush and Blair deny their authenticity.

That memo and other internal British government documents were originally obtained by Michael Smith, who writes for the London Sunday Times. Excerpts were made available to The Washington Post, and the material was confirmed as authentic by British sources who sought anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the matter. (boldface added for emphasis)

Here is the new cabinet paper that was released this weekend - it was from before the meeting that the Downing Street Memo summarizes. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1648758,00.html)

Also, someone much earlier in the thead asked why Kerry didn't make a big deal about the memo prior to the US elections. The reason why is that the Downing Street Memo (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19809-1593637,00.html) was not made public unti May 1, 2005.

The memos have both been substantiated (there was a new one released this weekend (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100723.html?sub=new)). They have been authenticated and not even Bush and Blair deny their authenticity.

Here is the new cabinet paper that was released this weekend - it was from before the meeting that the Downing Street Memo summarizes. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1648758,00.html)

Also, someone much earlier in the thead asked why Kerry didn't make a big deal about the memo prior to the US elections. The reason why is that the Downing Street Memo (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19809-1593637,00.html) was not made public unti May 1, 2005.

Where does Bush personally authenticate this document? Where does Blair say it's authentic?

And aside from anonymous sources, who says it's real?

Where does Bush personally authenticate this document? Where does Blair say it's authentic?

And aside from anonymous sources, who says it's real?

Just talking about the UK document as I know nothing about the US one. The cabinet have said "Its nothing new". This document has been known about since 02 i believe. Its only been fully released now as far as I know

Where does Bush personally authenticate this document? Where does Blair say it's authentic?

And aside from anonymous sources, who says it's real?

First of all, there is no way Bush will ever SAY that it is authentic, because it would be against his interest to do so. But, as stated in that Washington Post article, he does not deny that it is authentic, and neither does Blair. If there were any doubts as to the document's authenticity, they would most certainly have said so.

Neither Bush nor Blair has publicly challenged the authenticity of the July 23 memo

I know you don't WANT to believe that it is real...but I'm sorry, it is.

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."



--President Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005.

This has nothing to do with republican/democrat crap.

They neo-cons disregarded the US Constitution in pursuit of war. For this alone they must fry. But with added reasons of lying to the American public who is sacrificing a lot of lives and money for this damned fraud.

*signs*

This has nothing to do with republican/democrat crap.

They neo-cons disregarded the US Constitution in pursuit of war. For this alone they must fry. But with added reasons of lying to the American public who is sacrificing a lot of lives and money for this damned fraud.

*signs*

Bold statement, would you care to back any of it up?

Please note by my sig that I'm not a republican or even right wing so don't accuse me of being so I just want to see if there is any basis of this.

Only the liberal Left have accepted this fact. I'm NOT apart of any conspiracy fringe group. I'm just a voter who studied 2000 because it constently came up during the 2004 campaign (bad move by democrats) and I have studied every court opinion on this case from Florida Supreme Court (SIX, count'em SIX Democrats) to the Supreme Court Decision. I can easily find the opinion to destroy this line of logic.

Hahaha! Umm I'd love to hear your conclusions on what the "liberals" thought the real fraud was? You believe it was the re-count? The court case? Had nothing to do with either.

This has nothing to do with republican/democrat crap.

They neo-cons disregarded the US Constitution in pursuit of war. For this alone they must fry. But with added reasons of lying to the American public who is sacrificing a lot of lives and money for this damned fraud.

*signs*
Do you even know what you're talking about when referring to the Constitution?

First of all, there is no way Bush will ever SAY that it is authentic, because it would be against his interest to do so. But, as stated in that Washington Post article, he does not deny that it is authentic, and neither does Blair. If there were any doubts as to the document's authenticity, they would most certainly have said so.

I know you don't WANT to believe that it is real...but I'm sorry, it is.



Up until a few years ago, NASA had to deal with a large number of idiots who claimed that the moon landings were faked. As part of their evidence, they said that NASA had never denied that the moon landings were faked.

Now, after decades of not saying anything, NASA finally has a small department dedicated to denying the fake moon landing stories.

But I suppose that since NASA didn't deny the story for so long, that you believe the moon landings were faked.

Up until a few years ago, NASA had to deal with a large number of idiots who claimed that the moon landings were faked. As part of their evidence, they said that NASA had never denied that the moon landings were faked.

Now, after decades of not saying anything, NASA finally has a small department dedicated to denying the fake moon landing stories.

But I suppose that since NASA didn't deny the story for so long, that you believe the moon landings were faked.

Is there a memo from Downing Street that has something to do with moon landings? Because if there is, I would really like to see that.

Otherwise, your post is looking mightily like a straw man. The moon landing has nothing whatsoever to do with the Downing Street Memo.

Is there a memo from Downing Street that has something to do with moon landings? Because if there is, I would really like to see that.

Otherwise, your post is looking mightily like a straw man. The moon landing has nothing whatsoever to do with the Downing Street Memo.

It's not a straw man.

I'm pointing out your logical fallacy.

If I do not deny something that you assert, that does not mean that I authenticate what you assert. I may simply be ignoring you.

NASA ignored the people who believed the moon landings were fake.

Bush and Blair seem to be ignoring the people who believe the Downing Memo is completely true.

In any case, I've read the memo, and it doesn't say, "Bush wanted to lie about everything and start a war". It seems to read as if the Bush administration was cherrypicking their intel to support their cause.

Everyone cherrypicks intel. Everyone. If they were against going to war, they would cherrypick the intel the other way round.

Nothing in the memo says, "look out, Bush wants to lie about everything".

I would ignore the memo as well.

It's not a straw man.

Bush and Blair seem to be ignoring the people who believe the Downing Memo is completely true.

In any case, I've read the memo, and it doesn't say, "Bush wanted to lie about everything and start a war". It seems to read as if the Bush administration was cherrypicking their intel to support their cause.

Everyone cherrypicks intel. Everyone. If they were against going to war, they would cherrypick the intel the other way round.

Nothing in the memo says, "look out, Bush wants to lie about everything".

I would ignore the memo as well.

The cabinet have released a statement saying the memo "is nothing new". They are not ignoring it they just don't see the point in its importance. A view which I can understand really.

I would ignore the memo as well.

And clearly, this is exactly what you intend to do. That's fine - that's your choice. I get the impression that if a videotape of the Downing Street meeting jumped out and bit you in the nose, you'd still find some reason to insist that it isn't true. The right wing response to this reminds me of Holocaust deniers. But ok, fine, you can choose to believe what you want to believe.

I would just like to point out to our European friends that not ALL Americans are like this. Not by a long shot. The election was 51% to 49%. So please don't form your opinions of our entire country based on discussions like this. Thanks.

And clearly, this is exactly what you intend to do. That's fine - that's your choice. I get the impression that if a videotape of the Downing Street meeting jumped out and bit you in the nose, you'd still find some reason to insist that it isn't true. The right wing response to this reminds me of Holocaust deniers. But ok, fine, you can choose to believe what you want to believe.

I would just like to point out to our European friends that not ALL Americans are like this. Not by a long shot. The election was 51% to 49%. So please don't form your opinions of our entire country based on discussions like this. Thanks.

I read the memo from end to end. I do not recall any part of that memo that said, "well, there we were in the meeting with Bush and his advisers, and they asked us to lie about Iraq, because he really wanted to invade."

Show me. I see a part that indicates that he really wanted to invade, so he was selecting intel that would help him make the case, but nothing in the document says, "he asked us to lie" or "he told his advisors to lie", or, "I'm going to need some whoppers to tell Congress".

And clearly, this is exactly what you intend to do. That's fine - that's your choice. I get the impression that if a videotape of the Downing Street meeting jumped out and bit you in the nose, you'd still find some reason to insist that it isn't true. The right wing response to this reminds me of Holocaust deniers. But ok, fine, you can choose to believe what you want to believe.

Comparing this to the holocaust, I see your point but way OTT. I don't see the big fuss about this memo so if anyone could possibly clarify what the huge deal about this memo.
Answers on a piece of government paper please ;)

I would just like to point out to our European friends that not ALL Americans are like this. Not by a long shot. The election was 51% to 49%. So please don't form your opinions of our entire country based on discussions like this.Thanks.

Theres not much difference between the parties and I don't think any country should be judged based on its politics. e.g Italy, The Netherlands, France, America, UK, Russia and the Ukraine recently haven't been shining

I believe that if the memo were really something of substance, and there was anyone or anything to truly corroborate it, the Blair government would already have fallen

I think we need a brief lesson on UK politics here. So many US people assume we follow their system and assume Blair got voted in personally by the nation.

Our electoral system is an 'all-in-one'. Regions vote representatives into parliament. Most representatives are members of parties. he party with the most reps forms government and their leader becomes Prime Minister.

Hence why Blair has not fallen. He was elected by the people of Sedgefield to parliament and more people wanted labour in than wanted the Conservatives in. it's a flawed sysem, but name me one that isn't.

We don't like Blair. We thought he was lying before the war and nothing he has done since has countered evidence like the memo. We do however prefer Labour government to Conservative government.

I think we need a brief lesson on UK politics here. So many US people assume we follow their system and assume Blair got voted in personally by the nation.

Our electoral system is an 'all-in-one'. Regions vote representatives into parliament. Most representatives are members of parties. he party with the most reps forms government and their leader becomes Prime Minister.

Hence why Blair has not fallen. He was elected by the people of Sedgefield to parliament and more people wanted labour in than wanted the Conservatives in. it's a flawed sysem, but name me one that isn't.

We don't like Blair. We thought he was lying before the war and nothing he has done since has countered evidence like the memo. We do however prefer Labour government to Conservative government.

Agreed, our voting system is perverse but hey until we get PR then it won't change

I think we need a brief lesson on UK politics here. So many US people assume we follow their system and assume Blair got voted in personally by the nation.

Our electoral system is an 'all-in-one'. Regions vote representatives into parliament. Most representatives are members of parties. he party with the most reps forms government and their leader becomes Prime Minister.

Hence why Blair has not fallen. He was elected by the people of Sedgefield to parliament and more people wanted labour in than wanted the Conservatives in. it's a flawed sysem, but name me one that isn't.

We don't like Blair. We thought he was lying before the war and nothing he has done since has countered evidence like the memo. We do however prefer Labour government to Conservative government.

The Labour Party could have easily sacrificed Blair to the gods of appeasement.

Keep persuing the noble cause for truth Achtung 45. :)
lol
thank you for the encouragement. :)

lol
thank you for the encouragement. :)

I agree with CanuckHeaven :)

I don't see the big fuss about this memo so if anyone could possibly clarify what the huge deal about this memo.


This article (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18034) provides a pretty good explanation as to why some of us consider it to be a big deal, so I'll just quote it:



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

Seen from today's perspective this short paragraph is a strikingly clear template for the future, establishing these points:

1. By mid-July 2002, eight months before the war began, President Bush had decided to invade and occupy Iraq.
2. Bush had decided to "justify" the war "by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD."
3. Already "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
4. Many at the top of the administration did not want to seek approval from the United Nations (going "the UN route").
5. Few in Washington seemed much interested in the aftermath of the war.

By mid-July 2002, eight months before the war began, President Bush had decided to invade and occupy Iraq.

We already knew this in DC. Maybe people outside of town didn't know, but it wasn't a secret here.

2. Bush had decided to "justify" the war "by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD."

That's called cherry picking your intel, not lying.

3. Already "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

That's called cherry picking your intel, not lying.

4. Many at the top of the administration did not want to seek approval from the United Nations (going "the UN route").

It's not necessary. As long as Congress gives the approval for force to the President, it's legal under US domestic law. And they did give approval. In fact, the Senate Intelligence committee not only saw the evidence from the Bush team, they made their own intel inquiries. So it's not as though they bought everything that was said.

5. Few in Washington seemed much interested in the aftermath of the war.

They never are. Can you name one US war that was started where we discussed the aftermath before the first act of hostility?

You still haven't shown me a line in the memo that says "Bush was lying" which is what you are asserting.

The Labour Party could have easily sacrificed Blair to the gods of appeasement.

Not straight before a election they couldn't. Gordon Brown is an unknown quantity to too many, Most labour members prefer him but I'm not sure on the public at large whereas Blair is a charismatic and smart opponent to lay against Michael Howard (utter prick but with dangerously good ideas to appeal to the closet racists).

This article (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18034) provides a pretty good explanation as to why some of us consider it to be a big deal, so I'll just quote it:


1. By mid-July 2002, eight months before the war began, President Bush had decided to invade and occupy Iraq.



In fact, Bush wanted to invade Iraq much earlier. The day after 9/11 he went up to his counterterrorism advisor and asked if Iraq was involved in any way. The answer, of course, was "no," but it clearly showed Bush and his pals at the PNAC wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11 even happened. Perhaps they wanted to invade Iraq when the PNAC was formed in 1996(?), perhaps the entire Administration was set up so the PNAC could realize their sinister global plan of spreading democracy through military action starting in the Middle East. Perhaps...

In fact, Bush wanted to invade Iraq much earlier. The day after 9/11 he went up to his counterterrorism advisor and asked if Iraq was involved in any way. The answer, of course, was "no," but it clearly showed Bush and his pals at the PNAC wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11 even happened. Perhaps they wanted to invade Iraq when the PNAC was formed in 1996(?), perhaps the entire Administration was set up so the PNAC could realize their sinister global plan of spreading democracy through military action starting in the Middle East. Perhaps...

You still haven't substantiated your charge of "he lied". It looks like he came in with an agenda, and cherry picked his intel to support his case.

How is that a lie? And since when is spreading democracy "sinister"?

You still haven't substantiated your charge of "he lied". It looks like he came in with an agenda, and cherry picked his intel to support his case.


So he "mislead" people by cherry picking his intel to support his case? Fair enough :rolleyes:

You still haven't substantiated your charge of "he lied". It looks like he came in with an agenda, and cherry picked his intel to support his case.

How is that a lie? And since when is spreading democracy "sinister"?

The spread of democracy is a noble goal. It is presumptuous of us to assume that Bush's intentions were anything less than noble. We do not have access to all the intelligence he had, and he almost certainly did not have access to all the intelligence available. However, he made a choice and he stood by it. That is what we need- more people standing for what they believe in and not blown about by every wind of rumour and scandal that befalls them to change their mind and compromise the right. "Stand for something, or you will fall for anything" (I forget who said that).

[QUOTE=Whispering Legs]You still haven't substantiated your charge of "he lied". It looks like he came in with an agenda, and cherry picked his intel to support his case.
QUOTE]

So he "mislead" people by cherry picking his intel to support his case? Fair enough :rolleyes:

Everyone cherry picks their intel. And any politician who comes into office saying he doesn't have an agenda is lying.

You still haven't substantiated your charge of "he lied". It looks like he came in with an agenda, and cherry picked his intel to support his case.

How is that a lie? And since when is spreading democracy "sinister"?
He lied by not telling the people--who "elected" him into office--the troops--who give their lives for Bush's agenda--the true reason of his invasion. He hasn't come clean about "cherry-picking" his intel. If he truly supports the troops like he says and like his fellow Republicans say they do, then they deserve the 100% absolute truth as to why they are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I never said spreading of democracy was sinister; I said the spreading of democracy through military action is simply unjust. It doesn't matter if you're spreading democracy or if you're spreading Communism, it's an ideal that one group of people worship and that group is spreading their ideal through force. This is evident in Bush's invasion in Iraq. Here's where he lied about it:

"The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies."
-- 2005 State of the Union address, Washington, D.C., Feb. 2, 2005

"We are in Iraq to achieve a result. A country that is democratic."
-- (See above...) 2005 State of the Union address, Washington, D.C., Feb. 2, 2005

Doublethink!

Thank you Tarith. I am returning to this thread but that just had to be responded too. I've debated 2000 enough but it still comes up here and I have to continuously wack these liberals regarding the facts of 2000.

BTW: Anyone see proof that Bush knowingly lied here? I haven't seen the evidence yet and I've been hunting.

Anytime.. It's sad that this forum is dominated by the left wing... conservatives are always outnumbered in these forums.

And no, I have yet to see proof.

[QUOTE=Gataway_Driver]

Everyone cherry picks their intel. And any politician who comes into office saying he doesn't have an agenda is lying.

channelling the Queen Mother of Doggery

So if everyone jumped off a cliff, does that mean you would too?

(sorry, I couldn't resist)

And no, I have yet to see proof.
And yet, you need not see proof to support the invasion of Iraq?

I said the spreading of democracy through military action is simply unjust. It doesn't matter if you're spreading democracy or if you're spreading Communism, it's an ideal that one group of people worship and that group is spreading their ideal through force.

I guess then, that the greatest leader the Democratic Party ever had, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, should rise from his grave and apologize for spreading democracy by force in Europe and Asia.

Anytime.. It's sad that this forum is dominated by the left wing... conservatives are always outnumbered in these forums.

And no, I have yet to see proof.

what you don't seem to understand is that people in this forum are individuals, we arn't just left wing, right wing, conservatives, democrats. We are people expressing our views and just lumping those views into a pile and calling it left wing and right wing is just drawing battle lines. How is this helpfull ? It's not just you, people do it about the so called right wing and it annoys the hell out of me.

what you don't seem to understand is that people in this forum are individuals, we arn't just left wing, right wing, conservatives, democrats. We are people expressing our views and just lumping those views into a pile and calling it left wing and right wing is just drawing battle lines. How is this helpfull ? It's not just you, people do it about the so called right wing and it annoys the hell out of me.

I find it annoying as well. One thing I find fascinating is that many people here assume that because I believe one thing that every nightmarish thought in their head must therefore follow...

I find it annoying as well. One thing I find fascinating is that many people here assume that because I believe one thing that every nightmarish thought in their head must therefore follow...

Once someone looked at my political compass results and said "why are you defending bush you must hate him YOUR LEFT WING"

It just pisses me off

I guess then, that the greatest leader the Democratic Party ever had, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, should rise from his grave and apologize for spreading democracy by force in Europe and Asia.
Sure. Except I don't know what you're trying to refer to because nothing FDR did closely resembles what GWB is trying to do in a Iraq. If you're trying to refer to WWII, we did not overtly spread democracy. We contained Communism through the Marschall Plan and the pointless Cold War that followed but we did not spread democracy through force under FDR. We invaded the Philippines and tried to prop up a democratic government in the late 1800's and early 1900's, but I can't think of any large scale invasion led by FDR that was for the sole purpose of spreading democracy so I don't know what you're trying to refer to there, sorry. :)

And yet, you need not see proof to support the invasion of Iraq?

now hold up, we're talking about two different proofs and Im still catching up on my reading lol.

what you don't seem to understand is that people in this forum are individuals, we arn't just left wing, right wing, conservatives, democrats. We are people expressing our views and just lumping those views into a pile and calling it left wing and right wing is just drawing battle lines. How is this helpfull ? It's not just you, people do it about the so called right wing and it annoys the hell out of me.

Whoa there... calm down. I said that the forums were dominated by left wing thinkers. I did not say everyone was one. Aside from that, you say you're an individual and you dislike being classified. However you do realize that everyone is going to have an opinion that puts them maybe a little or a lot or whatever to the left or right. Now if you say that this is not true, or better yet you say you are in the middle, I would have to wonder what is going on in your mind that makes you so naive.

your all a bunch of pinko morons :headbang: . cant you see that whether or not he had them when we went in, he used to have them?? he gased the Kurds for crying out loud!!! and, polish troops DID find weapons, something which the media tried not to cover: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39243

and so what? if he did, or if he didnt, who really cares? he was a dictator. he filled mass graves all of iraq. he was a mass kiler. he deserved to go, and the world is better off without him.

i got a question for all of you, how many resolutions did the UN make against iraq? hmmmmm? what was it...17??!! so why is it that, when the UN (a corrupt organization which all you liberals love) makes resolution after resolution and saddamm basically gives the world the middle finger, the UN decides to back off, every time, but when the USA, one of the powers of the UN, and basically the only thing holding the UN together finally gets enough courage to do what the UN would not, we're the bad guys?!??!!? please explain the logic behind that, will you?

Somebody needs to get out of the red states and start reading real news, not world net daily (who is sponsored by the RNC) and so what if he used to have them, he got rid of them. That is the thin with you Neo-cons, you mark every little wrong-doing in you secret diary and once you have the shot, you makre them pay. Oh, about Saddam "Basically" giving the world the middle finger, Bush Really gave the world the middle finger, and you can see it all over the internet.

Oh, and just for you to now the UN is the glue that holds the world together and it could function much better if you facists quit putting a delagate in that has said that he thinks that the UN is a pointless gathering of 'commies'.

Somebody needs to get out of the red states and start reading real news, not world net daily (who is sponsored by the RNC) and so what if he used to have them, he got rid of them. That is the thin with you Neo-cons, you mark every little wrong-doing in you secret diary and once you have the shot, you makre them pay. Oh, about Saddam "Basically" giving the world the middle finger, Bush Really gave the world the middle finger, and you can see it all over the internet.


lol
It's like definition of the elephant from America: The Book
"The Republican Party's symbol, the elephant, represents the astounding memory of people who, if you say anything bad about them ever, file it away in a Rolodex of spite...and then trample you to death."

Somebody needs to get out of the red states and start reading real news, not world net daily (who is sponsored by the RNC) and so what if he used to have them, he got rid of them. That is the thin with you Neo-cons, you mark every little wrong-doing in you secret diary and once you have the shot, you makre them pay. Oh, about Saddam "Basically" giving the world the middle finger, Bush Really gave the world the middle finger, and you can see it all over the internet.

Oh, and just for you to now the UN is the glue that holds the world together and it could function much better if you facists quit putting a delagate in that has said that he thinks that the UN is a pointless gathering of 'commies'.

No, I don't read World Net Daily. And I'm not a neo-con. And, Saddam believed, up until the moment we captured him, that Iraq had anthrax.

Why? Because his head of bioweapons, a woman named Taha, told him he had some.

Only she knew that she had destroyed it in 1991. But she didn't tell the UN inspectors, because she knew Saddam would kill her for dumping it on the grounds near one of his palaces.

So UNSCOM knew the 1800 gallons of anthrax had been produced. Anthrax in containers lasts for decades. So multiple independent sources knew it was there - they just didn't know what happened to it.

And the only way to find out was to capture Iraq, capture Taha, interrogate her, and verify her story by digging up the dump site. It's all in the WMD survey team's final report.

Here, from a source you might trust http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=1998

Somebody needs to get out of the red states and start reading real news, not world net daily (who is sponsored by the RNC) and so what if he used to have them, he got rid of them. That is the thin with you Neo-cons, you mark every little wrong-doing in you secret diary and once you have the shot, you makre them pay. Oh, about Saddam "Basically" giving the world the middle finger, Bush Really gave the world the middle finger, and you can see it all over the internet.

Oh, and just for you to now the UN is the glue that holds the world together and it could function much better if you facists quit putting a delagate in that has said that he thinks that the UN is a pointless gathering of 'commies'.

haha real news. There is no such thing if by real news you mean unbiased news.

And no offense to the UN, but if the US left, it would fall apart. Why? Because the US is where the UN gets the majority of its funding. And also take a look at the League of Nations. Fell apart again because the US was not in it.

Don't mean to sound conceded, but it is the truth.

edit: I know, I know! I have flaming posts against me coming lol.

Here, from a source you might trust http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=1998

According to that article, what the anthrax story shows is just another incidence where the Bush administration jumped to conclusions that would support the result they wanted (war with Iraq), and insisted that they had "proof" when, in fact, they did not.

Warning of "tens of thousands of teaspoons" of anthrax still in Iraq, the then-U.S. secretary of state said of the discrepancy, "This is evidence, not conjecture. This is true."

By saying "this is evidence, not conjecture. This is true," when he knew full well that this was all based on nothing BUT conjecture, he was actively misleading people. Again.

Just one more thing to add to the list, I suppose.

You should also consider something else.

Once we're in there, we can't leave in any way that cannot be spun as a victory. It's political suicide otherwise.
I fully understand exactly what you are saying, and it is due to those circumstances, that is why I think it was unfortunate for the US to invade Iraq in the first place.

I do believe that the administration felt that the Iraqis would welcome US troops with open arms, but this hasn't happened. The "Mission Accomplished" routine was a crass publicity stunt that has backfired, and has left people questioning the "exit strategy". I think the truth is that there is no "exit strategy" and that the US plans to stay around for quite some time. I am sure that this hasn't fully resonated with the American electorate, but when it does, it will result in more negative public opinion.

As more details come to light, regarding the plans for invading Iraq, there will have to be an accounting, and it won't be a pretty picture.

According to that article, what the anthrax story shows is just another incidence where the Bush administration jumped to conclusions that would support the result they wanted (war with Iraq), and insisted that they had "proof" when, in fact, they did not.



By saying "this is evidence, not conjecture. This is true," when he knew full well that this was all based on nothing BUT conjecture, he was actively misleading people. Again.

Just one more thing to add to the list, I suppose.

It wasn't conjecture. UNSCOM has reports that identify the anthrax as having existed. And there's no way to find out whether or not it still existed without invading.

As for more commentary on the Downing Street Memo, we have this bit from John Hindracker:

Maybe I just missed it, but I haven't seen a lot of comment on the top secret British memo that was leaked just before this week's election. It apparently was written by Matthew Rycroft, and summarizes a meeting of Tony Blair and some of his top advisers on July 23, 2002. The memo is intensely interesting, so I am going to reproduce it in its entirety:

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

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

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT


Left-wing professor Juan Cole is one who has tried to use this memo to feed the BUSH LIED! theme. Cole's discussion of the memo is, to put it politely, overheated:

Any "debate" was meaningless if the president had already decided. And he wasn't waiting to make his decision in the light of the intelligence. He was going to tell the intelligence professionals to what conclusion they had to come. "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Cole focuses on what is, obviously, a striking sentence. It isn't clear, however, what it was intended to mean. Cole's implication, and the constant implication of the BUSH LIED! lefties, is that the administration really knew that Saddam didn't have any WMDs, but fixed the intelligence to make it appear that he did. But we know that isn't true. The consensus estimate of the U.S. intelligence community has been made public, and it clearly says that, with a high degree of confidence, Iraq possesses chemical and biological weapons. The Senate Intelligence Committee's report has confirmed that this is what the intelligence community believed and reported to the President, and that there is no evidence that the administration improperly influenced the gathering or reporting of intelligence ("The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.")

And, whatever the British note-taker meant by the sentence quoted by Cole, he obviously didn't mean that there was any doubt on the part of British intelligence or Blair's government that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. On the contrary, the notes specifically refer to Iraq's WMDs, in sections not quoted by Cole:

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD...
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.


Cole waxes even more hysterical on the issue of the Iraq war's legality:

Goldsmith was as nervous as a cat in a roomful of rocking chairs: "The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change."
The driness of the wit is unbearable. "The desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action"! Naked aggression is illegal, he could have said.

The Attorney General of the United Kingdom thought the reports Dearlove and Straw were bringing back from Washington reeked of an illegal war. People who plan out illegal wars are war criminals. He knew this. He was stuck, however. They were all stuck.


Professor Cole forgets an important bit of history here. Subsequent to this July meeting, the United States and Great Britain did go back to the U.N. for a new resolution, UNSCR 1441, which was adopted on November 8, 2002. When Iraq subsequently failed to comply with Resolution 1441, a new ground for military action existed. Thus, the Attorney General's concern about relying on a three-year-old resolution was satisfied; in the Attorney General's words, the situation changed. Consequently, when he wrote his official opinion shortly before the war began, he concluded that the war's legality was a "reasonably arguable case" that could be "reasonably maintained."

Is that a ringing endorsement? Of course not. But in our view, and that of most supporters of the war, a preemptive strike against a recidivist regime like Saddam's is clearly justified where there is reasonable apprehension of danger to our security. And, while it would be nice to have such a strike blessed by the U.N.'s Security Council, where members of the Security Council have been bribed and have promised to veto any resolution authorizing war, it is absurd to argue that such veto power means it is illegal to act in our own defense. Attorney General Goldsmith applied a narrower standard; but it is hardly a shock to learn that the Bush administration's view of what was necessary to legitimize the Iraq war was different from his or from Kofi Annan's.

In short, this British memo, while it does provide a fascinating glimpse into high-level decision making in Blair's government, is far from being a "smoking gun," as Cole calls it. It adds nothing to our knowledge of the important issues surrounding the Iraq war.

Here, from a source you might trust http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=1998

I would just like to point out that this "trustworthy" site comes from the same source that put a very biased Fahrenheit 911 out on the movie market. It also wrote the book Stupid White Men.

The fact is that Michael Moore is one of the more extreme liberals in our country today... for you to consider him trustworthy is very amusing.

So...I take it that now that you have found a different way to interpret the memo that is more to your liking, you believe that it is real, after all?

I would just like to point out that this "trustworthy" site comes from the same source that put a very biased Fahrenheit 911 out on the movie market. It also wrote the book Stupid White Men.

The fact is that Michael Moore is one of the more extreme liberals in our country today... for you to consider him trustworthy is very amusing.

Michael's site is only reposting an AP story. This is the same AP story that other news organizations have carried, including conservative papers like the Washington Times.

I usually link to liberal sources because the moment I don't, the people I'm arguing with get all uppity about the veracity of the source.

Tie the same data to Michael Moore, and they're "well, that's true, but..."

I would just like to point out that this "trustworthy" site comes from the same source that put a very biased Fahrenheit 911 out on the movie market. It also wrote the book Stupid White Men.

The fact is that Michael Moore is one of the more extreme liberals in our country today... for you to consider him trustworthy is very amusing.

So. Funny! :p

I think you're missing the point of his post, Tarith. He was using that link to back up a pro-Bush argument. But if you want to undermine him, that's cool.

So. Funny! :p

I think you're missing the point of his post, Tarith. He was using that link to back up a pro-Bush argument. But if you want to undermine him, that's cool.

It's rather hard to undermine the fact that UNSCOM reported on the missing anthrax for years.

It's rather hard to undermine the Taha story, as it has been reported by so many different news sources and verified in the WMD Survey report.

Try again.

I fully understand exactly what you are saying, and it is due to those circumstances, that is why I think it was unfortunate for the US to invade Iraq in the first place.

I do believe that the administration felt that the Iraqis would welcome US troops with open arms, but this hasn't happened. The "Mission Accomplished" routine was a crass publicity stunt that has backfired, and has left people questioning the "exit strategy". I think the truth is that there is no "exit strategy" and that the US plans to stay around for quite some time. I am sure that this hasn't fully resonated with the American electorate, but when it does, it will result in more negative public opinion.

As more details come to light, regarding the plans for invading Iraq, there will have to be an accounting, and it won't be a pretty picture.

I was never of more rank than a Sergeant, and I knew that if we did not immediately leave, we would be there at least as long as we've been in Germany.

And if I recall correctly, we still have troops in Germany.

Exit strategy, contrary to popular opinion, does not have to be "we all leave and declare victory a month from now" as many people assume. That's part of the Vietnam third rail that no one can touch.

It's what swayed a lot of voters away from Kerry at the last minute. They believed that he would immediately pull our troops and we would see the Saigon evacuation all over again.

Americans never want to see that again. Even if it means staying in Iraq for 20 years.

So...I take it that now that you have found a different way to interpret the memo that is more to your liking, you believe that it is real, after all?
No, I'm assuming for the sake of argument that it's real.

And if it's real, it isn't saying a single thing that we didn't know already.

Not one thing.

Care to point out the line that says, "Bush said we're all going to lie about everything so he can invade Iraq"? :eek:

So. Funny! :p

I think you're missing the point of his post, Tarith. He was using that link to back up a pro-Bush argument. But if you want to undermine him, that's cool.

Well now. You are now being judgmental and calling me pro-Bush. I do not necessarily call myself "pro-Bush" as I dislike many of his policies. In any case, I do not trust AP reports either. Again, there is no such thing as real news. And being posted on Michael Moore’s site does not help my opinion of that.

Also bear in mind that there are more then 2 sides here. Which goes back to an earlier argument I had.

in any case, I am done posting for the moment. This battlefield 2 demo is lagging up my internet

Shrub,

I know more about politics than you do apparently. Stick to philosphy and I'll stick to Political Science.

I know who Harris is. I know she did things by the Book. I know that the FL Supreme Court was bias and kept changing the rules on recounting while a recount was going on.

If you want to argue politics more, I suggest you get your facts straight.
November 13, 2000 | WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- Monday morning in Tallahassee, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris told Vice President Al Gore's men in Florida -- former campaign chairman Bill Daley and former Secretary of State Warren Christopher -- that Tuesday at 5 p.m. would be the absolute deadline for recount numbers from any county.
This was a blow to Gore's team, as well as to several of the Democratic counties that had requested an extension, since a hand recount in Palm Beach County was revealing a narrowing in the margin between the totals of Gore and Gov. George W. Bush, and the Gore forces wanted more time to count all the ballots. Hand recounts picked up votes for both candidates that had not been registered in the machine count, but since the Democratic-leaning county voted for Gore more so than for Bush, the hand recount was revealing a net gain for Gore.

With an unofficial gap of only 288 votes, every single "hanging chad" has worldwide implications.
For that reason, Republicans had begun sniping at the decision by the two Democrats on the Palm Beach County board, Theresa LePore and Carol Roberts, to push for a countywide manual recount, for which the county would need an extension.
Likewise, Democrats were raising their eyebrows at Harris' ruling Monday morning, in which she effectively told LePore and Roberts to remove all thoughts of a countywide hand recount from their minds. The deadline will stand, Harris said in a statement, "in order to effectuate the public's right to clarity and finality."
"We think the action by the Florida secretary of state is arbitrary and unreasonable," Christopher said to reporters immediately after the meeting.
Other prominent Democrats immediately began piling on. On "Good Morning America," Sen. Joe Lieberman made note that Harris was a supporter of Bush.
Rep. Peter Deutsch, D-Florida, argued that Harris's decision to not extend the deadline to at least Friday, is "bizarre," while also pointing out that she's Bush's state campaign co-chair."I honestly think what's going on is a strategic decision by the Bush campaign to hurt the litigation efforts," Deutsch said.
Even before Harris' decision had been declared, Gore supporters were already preparing to tar her as a biased, longtime supporter of Bush.
They didn't have to look too hard. Harris, first elected in 1988, was Bush's Florida co-chairwoman as far back as October 1999.
"I am thrilled and honored to announce my support of George W. Bush for the presidency," she said, as quoted in a "Bush for President" press release. Harris said that working with Bush's younger brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, "has provided a constant reminder of the power of values-based leadership -- the same leadership George has shown in Texas. I also share George's commitment to education, and I look forward to sharing his vision with Floridians."
She would later serve as a Bush delegate during the Republican National Convention.
Harris' activities on behalf of Bush went far beyond the normal activities of a state chairwoman, however. She was a presence on the Bush campaign in January, traveling with Jeb and 138 other Floridians as they flew from Miami and Tallahassee to New Hampshire on a leased Boeing 727 to campaign for the Texas governor in his primary campaign against Arizona Sen. John McCain.
Harris' presence on the tour -- called "Freezin' for a Reason" -- brought lovely photo ops of her and her fellow Floridians handing out bags of Florida oranges and Plant City strawberries.
It has also brought serious questions about her partisanship in light of her authority over the Florida controversy.

Apparently there wasn't any evidence either! BTW: She did things by the book. The results showed that Bush won Florida so she certified them. Nothing wrong with that.
November 13, 2000
Palm Beach and Volusia County Canvassing Boards sue Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris to halt her just-announced 5:00 p.m. vote certification and recount deadline. They want to gain time so they can continue their recounts of presidential ballots and include the hand counted votes that Harris seeks to prohibit. U.S. District Court Judge Middlebrook, holding that Florida's vote-counting process appeared to be neutral without any necessity for federal intervention, denies the Bush campaign's request for injunctive relief to halt a manual recount of Florida voters' ballots. Middlebrook concludes, "The body of law is pretty pervasive that the federal courts ought to stay out of state elections."
November 14, 2000
The Palm Beach County Canvassing Board decides to continue manual recounts of presidential votes, even though a state court judge in Tallahassee upholds Harris' previously announced 5:00 p.m. deadline for counties to report ballot counts to the state. Leon County Judge Terry Lewis upholds Harris' 5:00 p.m. deadline, but cautions that he will allow supplemental or corrected presidential vote totals after the deadline and that Harris may use them if she uses a "proper exercise of discretion." High-profile litigator David Boies joins the Gore campaign's legal team.
November 15, 2000
Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris sues in an effort to stop manual recounts. The Bush campaign appeals the U.S. District Court decision denying injunctive relief to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.
November 16, 2000
The Florida Supreme Court rejects the Republican Secretary of State's request to halt manual recounts and allows them to continue.
November 17, 2000
Judge Terry Lewis denies the Gore campaign's emergency motion to compel Republican Secretary of State Harris to comply with and enforce the court's earlier injunction. The Gore campaign immediately appeals to the Florida Supreme Court and obtains a stay to enjoin Harris from certifying election recount. The court schedules oral argument at a Court hearing at 2:00 p.m. EST on Monday, November 20, 2000. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejects the Bush campaign's emergency appeal.
November 18-19, 2000
All parties in the Florida Supreme Court appeal file briefs over the weekend.
November 20, 2000
The Florida Supreme Court listens to the parties' arguments on appeal. A Florida circuit judge rules that "it is not legally possible to have a revote or a new election for presidential electors in Florida" based upon voter confusion with, and constitutional challenges to, the butterfly ballot.
November 21, 2000
At 9:45 p.m.,the Florida Supreme Court renders a unanimous decision, ordering that manual recounts must be added to the final certified count of presidential votes by Florida voters. The Court holds that a Florida law providing that the Secretary of State "shall" ignore late returns, conflicts with another statute that says the Secretary "may" ignore returns. It finds that "an accurate vote count is one of the essential foundations of our democracy." The court makes clear that it wants to protect voters: "to allow the Secretary to summarily disenfranchise innocent electors in an effort to punish dilatory Board members, as she proposes...misses the constitutional mark."
November 22, 2000
Bush petitions the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to have the decision of the Florida Supreme Court overruled. Oral arguments are scheduled for December 1st.
November 23, 2000
Vice President Gore and the Florida Democratic Party file their own petition, opposing Bush's request for the Supreme Court to decide the case, arguing there is no federal question at issue for the Court to decide. Florida's Supreme Court denies Gore's petition to order Miami-Dade County to resume their manual ballot recount.
November 24, 2000
In a historic decision, the U.S. Supreme Court grants certiorari and decides to hear Bush's appeal of the Florida Supreme Court's November 21st decision. The country's highest court declines, however, to hear Bush's appeal of denials, by the Eleventh Circuit and the U.S. District Court in Miami, of the Republican presidential candidate's request for a temporary restraining order and injunction prohibiting any state-ordered manual recount of presidential ballots. Attorneys in consolidated class action cases for Florida voters challenging the election results and the constitutionality of the butterfly ballots, file emergency appeals to the Florida Supreme Court, arguing that trial courts have the legal authority to order new presidential elections in Florida.
November 26, 2000
Florida Secretary of State Harris certifies George W. Bush as the Florida voters' choice for President, rejecting Palm Beach County Canvassing Board amended recounts. The Gore legal team announces that it will head to court the following day to contest the certification.
November 27, 2000
Gore and Lieberman commence a new lawsuit by filing a complaint and a request for an emergency hearing, contesting the Secretary of State's recount, in Leon County, Florida. The judge refuses to begin an immediate recount. CNN makes a special application to broadcast ad televise oral arguments of the Bush v. Palm Beach County Canv. Bd. Litigation.
November 28, 2000
Bush, Gore, the Florida Secretary of State, and the Palm Beach County Canvassing Board file legal briefs with the Court outlining their respective arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court. Leon County Circuit Court Judge N. Sanders Sauls is assigned by the Court to preside over Gore's election certification litigation. The Gore legal team makes emergency applications to commence a recount and impound votes in Miami-Dad and Palm Beach Counties. The Court orders the parties to file "proffers" from witnesses in support of their arguments.
November 29, 2000
Leon County Judge Sanders orders that 1.16 Florida voter ballots from Miami-Dade and Palm Beach Counties be sent to Tallahassee, Florida for a possible recount. The NAACP says that it intends to litigate in Florida on behalf of minority voters who contend that voting irregularities plagued African-American voters in the state. They're charging that voters were unlawfully turned away from polls by sheriff's deputies, improperly stricken from voter rolls, or turned away by other means.
November 30, 2000
All parties to the U.S. Supreme Court litigation file reply briefs to oppose the arguments of the other parties. The Florida legislature considers holding a special session to name a new slate of Florida presidential electors for the electoral college.
December 1, 2000
The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments from all parties in the case of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canv. Bd. (No. 00-836), as throngs of protesters exercise their First Amendment rights outside the Court, shouting support for their favorite presidential candidates.
December 4, 2000
The U.S. Supreme Court sets aside the Florida ruling, reasoning that there was considerable uncertainty as to the grounds for the Florida Supreme Court's decision. In Florida, Gore's plea for a recount of the undervote is rejected by the trial court. Lawyers for both Bush and Gore had spent most of the weekend in court arguing the case. Immediately after the ruling, Gore's legal team filed a notice of appeal asking Florida's First District Court of Appeal to certify the case to the Florida Supreme Court.
December 5, 2000
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit listens to oral arguments on Bush's plea to stop the manual recounts. The request for an injunction had been rejected by the U.S. District Court.
December 6, 2000
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirms the lower court decision and denies Bush's request for an injunction to stop the recounts.
December 8, 2000
The Florida Supreme Court overturns the trial court decision that rejected Gore's plea for a recount of the undervote in certain Florida counties. A recount of the undervotes is ordered to begin immediately. Bush's legal team announces it will appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Lawsuits which sought to disqualify thousands of absentee ballots in Seminole and Martin Counties are rejected.
December 9, 2000
The U.S. Supreme Court stays the Florida recount. Oral arguments are scheduled for Monday, December 11th.
December 12, 2000
The U.S. Supreme Court reverses the Florida Supreme Court with a 7-2 decision.

You know how I love to stick my nose in ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Harris


Not accusing her of rigging the election but thats what she apparently did.
Hey there, Gataway_Driver, feel free to. Corny's fun to argue with sometimes.

From another forum I visit, someone posted:

I strongly suggest that everyone here sign the petition, write the President a letter, and tell as many people as you know. After the petition reaches 500,000 people, Congressman John Conyers (D - MI) is going to deliver the petition to the President.

I believe it's sad that we even need a petition for this. A full-fledged investigation should've been launched immediately. It was only the cooperation of the media and the people that led to the investigation of Nixon. Hopefully, bias in the media and apathy won't permit this criminal to stay in office.

EDIT: For the benefit of clarification, I'd like to add a few things.

#1. The memo was a summary of discussions between the highest ranking British government officials.
#2. The Blair administration has confirmed its authenticity, calling it, "Nothing new." ([url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1592904,00.html) The individuals involved in initially putting out the memo have not gotten in trouble for putting out lies, and no one disputes the memo's authenticity.

Individuals who put out the memo:
Foreign Policy Advisor, David Manning, who endorsed the memo
Matthew Rycroft, Manning's Aide who wrote the memo

Individuals who recieved the memo:
Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon
Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw
Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith
Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson
Chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee, John Scarlett (currently head of MI-6)
Ex-Director of GCHQ, Francis Richards
Chief of Defence Staff (identified as as "CDS"), Admiral Sir Michael Boyce
Head of MI-6 (identified as "C"), Sir Richard Dearlove (resigned in 2003)
Head of Defence Staff, Jonathan Powell
Director of Political & Government Relations, Sally Morgan
Head of Strategy, Alastair Campbell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_street_memo

Everything Bush says is a lie. That or an "exageration of the truth" which also counts as a lie. Just get used to who the dumb americans voted for and wait his term out.
(You'll noticed I said dumbe americans voted for Bush, if you didn't vote for him and are american, it just might be that you're not dumb.)

This has nothing to do with republican/democrat crap.

They neo-cons disregarded the US Constitution in pursuit of war. For this alone they must fry. But with added reasons of lying to the American public who is sacrificing a lot of lives and money for this damned fraud.

*signs*

Excuse me Americai, but how did the so called neo-cons disregard the US Constitution? Oh wait. They didn't. :rolleyes:

Anytime.. It's sad that this forum is dominated by the left wing... conservatives are always outnumbered in these forums.

So true. Conservatives do try their best but still...

And no, I have yet to see proof.

Neither have I.

There are two clubs in my school: the Young Democrats Club, and the Young Republicans club. Now, there are at least 12 kids in that club. You might think,
"HAHAHA, 12 DEMOCRATS HAHAHAHA" You what is even funnier, the Young Republicans have a total of 3 kids. 4:1 ratio in terms of democrats to republicans. What I also noticed is that all the the smart asian kids are in the democrats club while there are 2 stupid, valley girls as well as one jewish boy who fails almost every class. And when you talk to him about any subject, he comes up with terrible responses. He also smokes pot. I have seen him. Now, what does this tell you?

Now, what does this tell you?

That you don't like the Jewish kid and neither of the valley girls will go out with you?

That you don't like the Jewish kid and neither of the valley girls will go out with you?

No, it doesnt say any of that (obviously). I have a girlfriend already, I dont need them. I dont like that kid, not because he is jewish (I have many jewish freinds).

Bush lied.
Gee, go figure.

Bush lied.
Gee, go figure.

Care to provide proof that he knowingly lied or are you just going to ignore the fact that every investigation found it to be bad and not, repeat not, manipulated?