Bush LIED about WMD

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Wednesday, June 1, 2005 02:00
VIEWED: 8269
PAGE 1 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

SIGNYM

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 3:35 AM

Quote:
May 01, 2005
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

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....
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.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
I've been told crow tastes better with ketchup. Y'all might want to get some.

HARDWARE

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 10:20 AM

The people who supported Shrub when this whole thing kicked off, when it appeared that he lied, when they threw up their hands and admitted that Iraq never had any WMDs or the capability to produce them, will merely ignore this as another inconvenient fact. Now there is proof that the evidence was manufactured to support policy. But it won't matter to them. The nutcase right wingers are securely entrenched in tinfoil hatland and there will be no changing their minds.

All moderates can do is hang on and pray that the next political purge turns into a bloodbath.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

JCKNIFE

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 11:48 AM

Whose OPINION is refclected in the above "memo?"

I seem to recall some other "incriminating memos" being thrown at our president, that turned out to be forgeries.

The election is over--get over it. If you are passionate about defeating republicans, try to do it at the ballot box in 06 and 08.

KNIBBLET

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 12:31 PM

My concern isn't republicans, JCKnife. My concern is the neocon chickenhawks who kicked off this bloodbath for oil and power and the dominionists who are determined to rewrite our constitution in the image of their god.
Those fuckin liars and nutcases are what worry me. It also worries me that the current administration is up to their necks with these koolaid dispensing timebombs.

Yep. They worry people who believe in law and the separation of church and state.

Quote:
Originally posted by JCKnife:
If you are passionate about defeating republicans, try to do it at the ballot box in 06 and 08.

"I'm gonna rip you a new puppet hole, bitch!"

JCKNIFE

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 12:34 PM

Here's another problem with the memo (which, as far as I can tell, is not being picked up by any reputable news source): the use of the word "fixed" does not necessarily mean "altered"--especially in British usage. It seems likely that intellegence-gathering efforts were being centered on what was perceived as the next challenge of defeating world terrorism on its own turf. In that sense, "fixed" is as "we fixed our gaze on the enemy."

Even that is probably more attention than this memo deserves.

BYTETHEBULLET

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 12:44 PM

But it has got to be true, it is on the interWEB!

ByteTheBullet (-:

SIGNYM

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 2:04 PM

You guys really are crackers, aren't you? The timesonline is part of the Times published in London, aka the London Times. That is the link.

Are you saying the London Times isn't reputable?

Oh! I just got it! You get YOUR info from FAUX news, which is SOOO much better!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

CALLMEATH

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 3:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:

Yep. They worry people who believe in law and the separation of church and state.

Not really trying to get in this argument. I just have one small question. When did the whole "separation of church and state" thing become a law? If I recall correctly (and I may not, government class was so long ago) there is nothing in the constitution about it. The only mention of church in the constitution says something like "Congress may pass no law regarding the practice of religion". If fact, I believe the idea of separation came from a letter Jefferson wrote to someone (Madison?).

Oh, and I like the separation of church and state. Who cares if kids say "under God" in the pledge? A true Christian doesn't try to cram his/her religion down people's throat. One thing that does drive me nuts about the current administration is that it has everyone thinking that it acts in a Christian manner, when nothing could be farther from the truth. Jesus was quite the pacifist. I can't help but think of the Crusades, the African and other various slave trades, the Native American massacres and the Holocaust, all of which were "backed by God", which is of course a huge pile of crap. There's nothing about "holy wars" in Jesus's teachings.

Quote:
who are determined to rewrite the constitution in the image of their god

My point being that they don't know their God. They seem to think they can change Him to be like they want, however.

Wow, my whole "not wanting to get into this argument" thing really flew out the window, huh? Oh well, bring it on I suppose.

"Invader's blood marches through my veins like giant radioactive rubber pants. The pants command me! Do not ignore my veins!"

SIGNYM

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 4:29 PM

Actually, both Madison AND Jefferson wrote extensively about the "wall of separation between church and state". Sometimes they phrased it as "the wall of separation between government and clergy", sometimes they used the phrase "church and state" but however they phrased it, their intent was quite clear. Others wrote about the corrosive effect of allowing clergy into the government (produces neither good clergy nor good government).

I know ppl who read the Federalist often claim that the whole concept of the wall of separation between church and state is a "modern invention" but apparently they haven't read much about the Founding Fathers who were agnostics and deists and philosophers of the French Enlightenment, and who really really really hated the concept of mixing Church and religion. THEY had learned from the whole sordid history of "Christian" governments (Geneva was forced to change its official religion four times in a dozen years, and anyone who didn't get with the program was jailed, tortured or killed) as apaprently the current Christian Taliban hasn't figured out.

As for our Consitution- if you read it closely, you will see there is NOT ONE mention of "God". That is not accidental. The closest that the deists could come to mentioning "god" is found in the phrase "endowed by their Creator". Not "THE Creator" but "THEIR Creator"... however envisioned by other religions. Some of the Founding Fathers (Jefferson notably) were aware that even "pagans" had religion and left the Consitution open to embrace even them.

The best graffito that I ever saw was "Jesus was killed by preachers and politicians". Sigh. Ain't it the truth?

SIGNYM

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 4:32 PM

So- where are all the erstwhile defenders of the shrub? My, how quickly they abandon their own pretenses.

Edited to add: Not one of them is smart enough to figure out they were wrong, or honest enough to admit it. Worse, not one is mentally strong enough to contemplate the implications of an Administration of sociopathic liars.

Here- have some ketchup! You know who you are!

1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE