NationStates Jolt Archive

Nothing really new to anyone who's been following this story, since the Guardian reported on this nearly two months ago, but now the NY Times has a big spread on the story (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/europe/27memo.html?_r=1&ei=5094&en=b6593aee0e01d384&hp=&ex=1143435600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&oref=login) of how Bush was determined to go to war, even though neither he nor Blair expected to find any WMD.
But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times....

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein....

At their meeting, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair candidly expressed their doubts that chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would be found in Iraq in the coming weeks, the memo said. The president spoke as if an invasion was unavoidable. The two leaders discussed a timetable for the war, details of the military campaign and plans for the aftermath of the war....

I snipped the hell out of that article, but the link takes you to a single page, rinter-friendly version of the piece.

Like I said, no surprises to anyone who's been watching, but it does put the lie to Bush's recent exchange with Helen Thomas when he said (among other things) that war was his last option. He was going to war no matter what and everyone around him knew it.

yay, Bush is a liar. Let me think... yup, this ought to have no bearing on anything to do with his presidency. Who cares if he lied to go to War? It's not like he lied about having an affair with White House bIntern Laden or somesuch. That's what's really important.

Nothing really new to anyone who's been following this story, since the Guardian reported on this nearly two months ago, but now the NY Times has a big spread on the story (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/europe/27memo.html?_r=1&ei=5094&en=b6593aee0e01d384&hp=&ex=1143435600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&oref=login) of how Bush was determined to go to war, even though neither he nor Blair expected to find any WMD.


I snipped the hell out of that article, but the link takes you to a single page, rinter-friendly version of the piece.

Like I said, no surprises to anyone who's been watching, but it does put the lie to Bush's recent exchange with Helen Thomas when he said (among other things) that war was his last option. He was going to war no matter what and everyone around him knew it.
This needs to come up as often as is necessary. I recall printing a good portion of this material a year ago or so.

This needs to come up as often as is necessary. I recall printing a good portion of this material a year ago or so.
I agree, but it got precious little attention when I posted it this morning, as you can tell.

I agree, but it got precious little attention when I posted it this morning, as you can tell.

Because we have already been there and discussed this. Yes it is good to put it back out in front and centre every once in a while, but there is nothing much that most of us can add to what has already been posted.

I agree, but it got precious little attention when I posted it this morning, as you can tell.
It's a good thing we feel like posting about it then, isn't it? ;)

it must be exhausting being a Bush defender when Bush gets caught in lie after lie after lie after lie add nauseaum

but what I dont understand is what do they get out of defending a President who does nothing but betray them and their country? Im a Democrat but I would never defend Clinton if he did even a fraction of everything Bush is accused of--Can such extreme party loyalty EVER be justified?

it must be exhausting being a Bush defender when Bush gets caught in lie after lie after lie after lie add nauseaum

but what I dont understand is what do they get out of defending a President who does nothing but betray them and their country? Im a Democrat but I would never defend Clinton if he did even a fraction of everything Bush is accused of--Can such extreme party loyalty EVER be justified?
Good question. That's what's being hashed out right now, apparently. I'd venture to say a distinction in the whole happy fleet is inevitable. The question is whether they'll bother to stick long enough. A really good test, for example (aside from the last two) will be the current one on immigration.

it must be exhausting being a Bush defender when Bush gets caught in lie after lie after lie after lie add nauseaum

but what I dont understand is what do they get out of defending a President who does nothing but betray them and their country? Im a Democrat but I would never defend Clinton if he did even a fraction of everything Bush is accused of--Can such extreme party loyalty EVER be justified?
I don't think so, but I've never had my party involved in fuckups of this magnitude. It's easy to say that I'd toss them overboard, and I'd like to think I would, but if you've wrapped your political life up in the party, I can see how you'd be loathe to let go of it. Even Nixon had supporters on the day he left office, after all.

If I'd been alive during LBJ's last couple of years, I'd have probably tossed him over in favor of someone else--probably not Nixon, though. Third party.

its working out to be a very interesting election year on so many levels-But if the Dems fail to at least liberate one House this fall Im going to turn my back on the Democratic party. Unlike Republicans I have to put my country before my party

I don't think so, but I've never had my party involved in fuckups of this magnitude. It's easy to say that I'd toss them overboard, and I'd like to think I would, but if you've wrapped your political life up in the party, I can see how you'd be loathe to let go of it. Even Nixon had supporters on the day he left office, after all.

If I'd been alive during LBJ's last couple of years, I'd have probably tossed him over in favor of someone else--probably not Nixon, though. Third party.
All the more chagrining that DeLay had the recent success while still undergoing the investigation. :(

I don't think so, but I've never had my party involved in fuckups of this magnitude. It's easy to say that I'd toss them overboard, and I'd like to think I would, but if you've wrapped your political life up in the party, I can see how you'd be loathe to let go of it. Even Nixon had supporters on the day he left office, after all.

If I'd been alive during LBJ's last couple of years, I'd have probably tossed him over in favor of someone else--probably not Nixon, though. Third party.
Bush makes Nixon look like a leftwing radical:D

All the more chagrining that DeLay had the recent success while still undergoing the investigation. :(
There was never any chance that DeLay would lose in his primary. Not a chance in hell. And even though Lampson is his strongest opponent since he won the seat, I wouldn't be surprised if DeLay won in November, though I expect he'll have to campaign like he hasn't in a long time. DeLay knows his game locally--he knows his district and he's done a lot of favors over the years. He wouldn't be the first Congressman to win while under indictment.

Bush makes Nixon look like a leftwing radical:D
Ain't that the truth.

There was never any chance that DeLay would lose in his primary. Not a chance in hell. And even though Lampson is his strongest opponent since he won the seat, I wouldn't be surprised if DeLay won in November, though I expect he'll have to campaign like he hasn't in a long time. DeLay knows his game locally--he knows his district and he's done a lot of favors over the years. He wouldn't be the first Congressman to win while under indictment.
Well, as i said, it's to my chagrin (and i imagine a few others) - but it isn't just about his prowess, it indeed is qualified by the people who believe the brand and not the butter.

Nothing really new to anyone who's been following this story, since the Guardian reported on this nearly two months ago, but now the NY Times has a big spread on the story (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/europe/27memo.html?_r=1&ei=5094&en=b6593aee0e01d384&hp=&ex=1143435600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&oref=login) of how Bush was determined to go to war, even though neither he nor Blair expected to find any WMD.


I snipped the hell out of that article, but the link takes you to a single page, rinter-friendly version of the piece.

Like I said, no surprises to anyone who's been watching, but it does put the lie to Bush's recent exchange with Helen Thomas when he said (among other things) that war was his last option. He was going to war no matter what and everyone around him knew it.


And?

Unlike you, I no longer consider the New York Times to be a credible source of news. It's somewhere in the basement along with Fox News.

After the Jayson Blair and Judith Miller debacles, the NYT has done absolutely nothing to restore my confidence in anything it prints.

And?

Unlike you, I no longer consider the New York Times to be a credible source of news. It's somewhere in the basement along with Fox News.

After the Jayson Blair and Judith Miller debacles, the NYT has done absolutely nothing to restore my confidence in anything it prints.
It's a good thing then that the information came from other sources, *ALL* of which i've already posted before, huh?
That's a swing at a phantom, LITERALLY.
Perhaps it's in the Forum Archives, ya think?

So where ya been, anyway?

Not to gripe, but the Times had a spread on the memo two months ago, or something similar. Hell, even my hometown's small time newspaper talked about it. It's nothing new.

It's a good thing then that the information came from other sources, *ALL* of which i've already posted before, huh?
That's a swing at a phantom, LITERALLY.
Perhaps it's in the Forum Archives, ya think?

So where ya been, anyway?

I'm on business in the UK.

I just don't read the NYT. You can point to sources, but IMHO, Helen Thomas is a windbag, and the NYT can pull any conclusion it wants out of thin air.

At this point, who cares what Bush was thinking? Does it really matter? Would it change anything? Can his popularity go any lower?

Seems like Americans were FOR the war when it started, and are AGAINST it now that it's a nasty insurgency. Seems like even the NYT and Judith Miller were beating the war drums themselves at the start.

Or did I misread the NYT when I used to read it?

As long as their going to bring up the Downing Street Memos, and say "oh, that bad Bush wanted war so bad", why don't we reprint what the NYT was saying at the time about mobile WMD labs?

I would love the irony.

I'm on business in the UK.
Well, we KNEW that. I mean, while yer over there, like Stonehenge or something?

At this point, who cares what Bush was thinking? Does it really matter? Would it change anything? Can his popularity go any lower?Thanks for that line. I'm glad it's out in the open! :D

Seems like Americans were FOR the war when it started, and are AGAINST it now that it's a nasty insurgency. I wasn't for invading Iraq, never was. I had good reason, and strangely enough, i was given even more. And there were many, MANY others.Seems like even the NYT and Judith Miller were beating the war drums themselves at the start.

Or did I misread the NYT when I used to read it?Who else can answer what you read or misread?

As long as their going to bring up the Downing Street Memos, and say "oh, that bad Bush wanted war so bad", why don't we reprint what the NYT was saying at the time about mobile WMD labs?

I would love the irony.Well, perhaps you should reprint it. I'm not saying you're wrong about it, since i don't single out too many news sources for my discrimination. It's the actual information i'm concerned about, and its veracity - not the character assassination. Unless we're talking about people who TELL the press what to say ....

At this point, who cares what Bush was thinking? No idea. It would be nice if some people could see past their party politics and consider that he just might be the criminal he could well be.
Does it really matter? Would it change anything? Would be nice if it did.
Can his popularity go any lower?If it isn't zero yet, then yes, it can.

Seems like Americans were FOR the war when it started, and are AGAINST it now that it's a nasty insurgency. Seems like even the NYT and Judith Miller were beating the war drums themselves at the start.I always thought we were DIVIDED on the issue.

At this point, who cares what Bush was thinking? Does it really matter?
Umm, maybe ppl who don't like their elected officials lying to them and dragging them into a conflict based not on evidence but a fanatical obsession to go after Saddam, no matter what.
Seems like Americans were FOR the war when it started,
Quite, as long as you forget the hundreds of thousands who marched against the war before it started.

As long as they're going to bring up the Downing Street Memos, and say "oh, that bad Bush wanted war so bad", why don't we reprint what the NYT was saying at the time about mobile WMD labs?

I would love the irony.
See, that would only be ironic if it had relevance to these memos.
Which it doesn't.
The memos aren't about whether Saddam had WMDs, they're about the fact that Bush was determined to go in regardless, and has since then lied to the American public stating that invasion was the last thing on his mind.

I wasn't for invading Iraq, never was. I had good reason, and strangely enough, i was given even more. And there were many, MANY others.Who else can answer what you read or misread?

Well, I guess every polling organization in the US was dead wrong - either that, or everyone now wants to say that they were always against it - much like "every" Frenchman alive in 1940-1945 was a member of the French Resistance.

I didn't misread ANYTHING in the New York Times. Judith Miller's stories were strongly in favor of the war, and the New York Times gave her first billing and a front seat to shout it.

See, that would only be ironic if it had relevance to these memos.
Which it doesn't.


It has everything to do with it. The New York Times was as pro-war as Bush, and their pushing of Judith Miller's unresearched and unsubstantiated stories wasn't any different from Bush's pushing of his stories.

I fail to see the slightest difference.

Well, I guess every polling organization in the US was dead wrong - either that, or everyone now wants to say that they were always against it - much like "every" Frenchman alive in 1940-1945 was a member of the French Resistance.I don't associate much with the french so you can use that as you like *shrug*
But don't try and BS me about "every polling" or "dead wrong". What americans WANTED was to get Bin Laden. Not to invade a completely unrelated country. Perhaps you're a smidge mixed up there.

I didn't misread ANYTHING in the New York Times. Judith Miller's stories were strongly in favor of the war, and the New York Times gave her first billing and a front seat to shout it.My response was due this:
Or did I misread the NYT when I used to read it?
And, as pointed out before, whatever makes the itchiest headline gets the most scratch.
Regardless, this info's already been covered a while back and isn't part-and-parcel to *any* particular news group who covers it.
The info is *from* the people whose job it was to know.

And?

Unlike you, I no longer consider the New York Times to be a credible source of news. It's somewhere in the basement along with Fox News.

After the Jayson Blair and Judith Miller debacles, the NYT has done absolutely nothing to restore my confidence in anything it prints.

Whic ignores the fact that this memo has surfaced before, by a number of papers and mainstream news channels (CH4, the beeb, the guardian) and it is in fact genuine. Therefore, whats your counter to what the memo contains?

Whic ignores the fact that this memo has surfaced before, by a number of papers and mainstream news channels (CH4, the beeb, the guardian) and it is in fact genuine. Therefore, whats your counter to what the memo contains?
I could care less what the memo contains.

It's pretty apparent that it contains nothing actionable, despite having it flogged to death in the press.

I could care less what the memo contains.Well, not very helpful, but i guess that's what was asked for. Tsk.


It's pretty apparent that it contains nothing actionable, despite having it flogged to death in the press.
That would depend entirely on what action you intend to take, now wouldn't it? If you'd read them you'd know. It's not about how "apparent" something is due "the press" (wait, deja vu)

I could care less what the memo contains.

It's pretty apparent that it contains nothing actionable, despite having it flogged to death in the press.

But strangely cared enough to attempt to "trash" the source.....

And whether or not something is legally actionable is hardly the basis for debate when the perpetrator is effectively beyond the reach of justice.

And?

Unlike you, I no longer consider the New York Times to be a credible source of news. It's somewhere in the basement along with Fox News.

After the Jayson Blair and Judith Miller debacles, the NYT has done absolutely nothing to restore my confidence in anything it prints.

Well Jason Blair was 2003 or so.....Judith Miller left the Times in September 2005...

Yet heres you using it as a "credible source of news" with regard to a European report that failed to find evidence of "secret prisons" in January of 2006. Link to thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=465244&highlight=SADDAM)

Now one could check various other sources to check the validity of that report (and it is true, as far as I recollect), but the same could be said of this one (and has been). So do you only consider it credible to source a story from when it posts something that suits you?

And presumably "I just don't read the NYT. " should have "since Jan 2006" added as an addendum

It has everything to do with it. The New York Times was as pro-war as Bush, and their pushing of Judith Miller's unresearched and unsubstantiated stories wasn't any different from Bush's pushing of his stories.

I fail to see the slightest difference.
Well, let's see if we can find a difference:
Judith Miller: A hack who got caught lying and booted from her job (sorry, retired from her job). As far as I'm aware, her obsession with her job has yet to result in anyone's death.
George Bush: 43rd president of the USA who has been caught lying on several occasions. He made the decision to drag the US into a war, based in part on those lies. And he's still president. And his obsession with toppling Saddam, no matter what, has led to the deaths of close to 100 000.

Hmm...can't quite put my finger on it, but I feel there is a slight difference there.

Well, let's see if we can find a difference:
Judith Miller: A hack who got caught lying and booted from her job (sorry, retired from her job). As far as I'm aware, her obsession with her job has yet to result in anyone's death.
George Bush: 43rd president of the USA who has been caught lying on several occasions. He made the decision to drag the US into a war, based in part on those lies. And he's still president. And his obsession with toppling Saddam, no matter what, has led to the deaths of close to 100 000.

Hmm...can't quite put my finger on it, but I feel there is a slight difference there.

oohh! oohh! I know, I know!


...One's a woman, right?

oohh! oohh! I know, I know!


...One's a woman, right?
Wrong! It's that one's from New York and one's from Connecticut.

*grins widely* Ah yes the infamous downing street memos. Really I think you should be concentrating your attention on the reams of material coming out of iraq, most of which that has yet to be translated but of the stuff that has, most pretty much vindicates the war, insomuch as it would need vindication at this stage, which it really doesn't.

*grins widely* Ah yes the infamous downing street memos. Really I think you should be concentrating your attention on the reams of material coming out of iraq, most of which that has yet to be translated but of the stuff that has, most pretty much vindicates the war, insomuch as it would need vindication at this stage, which it really doesn't.That's true, it's impossible to vindicate the war.

*grins widely* Ah yes the infamous downing street memos. Really I think you should be concentrating your attention on the reams of material coming out of iraq, most of which that has yet to be translated but of the stuff that has, most pretty much vindicates the war, insomuch as it would need vindication at this stage, which it really doesn't.That's a pretty little world you live in, far from the world of reality. Must be nice there, a world where Bush is competent and the war was justified and conservatives are honest. [/snark]

He was going to war no matter what and everyone around him knew it.
Yup, I knew that before the invasion.

When Afghanistan was attacked after 9/11, I fully supported the retaliatory strike. However, when Bush started talking about invading Iraq, I was pissed off. I am really glad that our country stayed out of Iraq.

Bush's war cry of "You are either with us or against us", didn't cut it for Iraq, and just pissed people off around the globe.

The misery of his decision lives on......

*grins widely* Ah yes the infamous downing street memos. Really I think you should be concentrating your attention on the reams of material coming out of iraq, most of which that has yet to be translated but of the stuff that has, most pretty much vindicates the war, insomuch as it would need vindication at this stage, which it really doesn't.
The US confiscated the Iraqi documents, and considering the BS that the present administration has already dished out regarding Iraq, I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the resulting propaganda.

*grins widely* Ah yes the infamous downing street memos. Really I think you should be concentrating your attention on the reams of material coming out of iraq, most of which that has yet to be translated but of the stuff that has, most pretty much vindicates the war, insomuch as it would need vindication at this stage, which it really doesn't.


Ahhh yes. "The nation review". Articles by PNAC, crayon illustrations by Bush. If something had been "translated" it would have been delivered by gleeful men at official pentagon or whitehouse press conferences and thrown at every major news channel on the planet. Its just in the "national review". Work it out for yourself.

Americans lie. Always. Thats a fact of life. The Downing Street memos are only further proof of that.

...another liberal rag does some more Bush-smearing.

Not news at all.

...another liberal rag does some more Bush-smearing.

Not news at all.Just because it makes your boy look worse (if that's even possible these days) doesn't mean it's inaccurate. Come in out of the rain. We won't hurt you, I swear.

*grins widely* Ah yes the infamous downing street memos. Really I think you should be concentrating your attention on the reams of material coming out of iraq, most of which that has yet to be translated but of the stuff that has, most pretty much vindicates the war, insomuch as it would need vindication at this stage, which it really doesn't.

I am a translator. I can make the original text say pretty much whatever I want it to say and have it accepted as being a valid translation by any invigilation. It all comes down to the conotations that you choose to include, and the conotations you choose to exclude. The validation can only ever look at the denotation.

Translated documents are no proof of anythig, ever!

Ahhh yes. "The nation review". Articles by PNAC, crayon illustrations by Bush. If something had been "translated" it would have been delivered by gleeful men at official pentagon or whitehouse press conferences and thrown at every major news channel on the planet. Its just in the "national review". Work it out for yourself.
:D

...another liberal rag does some more Bush-smearing.

Not news at all.
Another post glaring the ignorance of the poster to material provided on the very thread that the poster would normally be partial to perusing.
A failure of comprehension - no news at all.