The Downing Street Memo: Just another empty Anti-War Leftist canard
POSTED BY: lynchaj
UPDATED: Sunday, June 19, 2005 09:05
VIEWED: 15313
PAGE 5 of 9
The Americans and the British. Two great peoples divided by a common language.
Or something like that.
I found this passagefrom the article interesting,
Quote:
Dearlove’s comments include the intriguing passage noted above, “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.” To the president’s critics, the meaning is clear — the WMD intelligence was being faked to support the rationale for intervention.
This passage needs some clarification. Maybe Rycroft or Dearlove could elaborate; by “fixed around” did they mean that intelligence was being falsified or that intelligence and information were being gathered to support the policy?
Either the author is being disingenuous, or he is in dire need of an Anglophile on staff, likely both. It doesn't take Sir Humphrey to explain the idiom "fixed around". Any reasonably intelligent Brit can tell you exactly what that means. Let me give an example that may clarify that meaning.
A judge at the Old Bailey said, "My favorite nephew is to be put on trial for embezzlement. Not to worry, I'm the presiding judge. I'll be sure that the evidence to be admitted is fixed around his alibi."
Hope that makes the meaning clear.
Quote:
There is nothing wrong with the latter — it is the purpose of the intelligence community to provide the information decision-makers need, and the marshal their resources accordingly.
But if Dearlove meant the former, he should be called upon to substantiate his charge.
Hate to be pedantic, but Dearlove never charged anyone with anything, he simply took a note.
It is interesting that so many analysts involved directly with analysis of the available intelligence, and subsequent verification, say that they did not, and know of no one in the community who did, support the assertions the administration made to justify war. Like this fellow,for instance,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml
Finally, is anyone else disturbed by the fact that we clearly engaged in warfare, yet never declared war? Shouldn't we demand that our government obey its own laws? Isn't this what is meant by, "A nation of laws not men"?
And no, I consider it acceptable for the Congress to abdicate their responsibilities by a trick of legislative sophistry.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
Finally, is anyone else disturbed by the fact that we clearly engaged in warfare, yet never declared war? Shouldn't we demand that our government obey its own laws? Isn't this what is meant by, "A nation of laws not men"?
And no, I consider it acceptable for the Congress to abdicate their responsibilities by a trick of legislative sophistry.
"Technically", we were still at war, just under a "ceasefire", so there reallyw as no need to "Declare War" again. All "laws" were followed.
As for the memo, which I have elaborated on in my own way above, by showing how it makes sense because our government's foreign policy is is controlled by PNAC.
"Fixed", "Planned", "Manipulated", any way you want to word it, it still doesn't show anyone anything that wasn't already out there in the open for the world to see if they wanted to. That's why I call it horseshit.
RUE- I tend to disagree with the analysis that the world is about to fall apart once "Oil Production" declines. There are untapped resources around the world. Some of which we know about and some of which we don't. Big Oil won't stop until they've found and exploited every last one LOL. So I wouldn't worry about an OIl decline for ours or the next 2 or 3 generations life times anyhow. LOL
Right now the US reserves, I believe are at almost maximum capacity which blows my mind. This whole oil crisis is not so much about the oil, but the refineries. They (Big Oil-aka Big Business and Big Government), play it off like it's an oil crisis so they can continue to make Trillions of $'s. They (our government) have just recently approved the construction of a new refinery. This is something that takes decades to accomplish. Right now I believe we have 2 major refineries in the US..and hopefully the 3rd will come online by 2009.
China on the other hand IS going to become a MAJOR economic power in the world.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The memo belongs in context. The meeting took place and the memo written July 2002, well before UNMOVIC entered Iraq in November 2002, and obviously well before the UN had a chance to determine if Saddam was in substantial compliance with UN resolutions. Why couldn't Bush wait another three weeks to see if his dire assessment was true? The reason is simple- if Blix had been allowed to complete his report, it would have removed Bush's excuse for war.
In early 2001, both Rice and Powell declared that Iraq had no WMD. www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm (Just google_ iraq wmd 2001_ for a quick review of how NOT a problem it was) but the day after 9/11 Rumsfeld apparently pressed for an invasion of Iraq (according to Richard Clarke) and by May 2002 the US and UK increased their bombing rate apparently to degrade surface to air defenses, although the madate was only for bombing in "self defense". http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/UK_and_U.S._bombing_raids_against_Iraq_inc
reased_in_2002
Beginning about September 2002, Bush and the rest of his administration publicly began pounding the WMD drumbeat www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html becoming more insistent and horrific with time until we began hearing about mushroom clouds and huge stockpiles and WMD deployed around Baghdad and Tikrit (It was the orchestrated ramp up in rhetoric that clued me in to what was going on) until the national hysteria reached a fever pitch and nobody could even think of waiting for the UNMOVIC assessment.
It was all planned beforehand, and Bush lied.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey ConnorFlynn
http://www2.exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/corporate/outlook04_18.pdf
If you look at the chart, non-OPEC producers appear to peak for crude and condensate around 2011 - 2012, all OPEC and world natural gas liquids appear to plateau around 2015. "Non-OPEC production is expected to peak in the next 10 years or so, with 70% of production from seven areas: Russia, the U.S., the North Sea, Mexico, Canada, China and Brazil."
OTOH, with production plateaued, if I read the charts right total oil demand will grow from ~ 70MBD to ~145MBD by 2030, with transportation between 60% (developing) and 70% (developed) of total demand. http://www.exxonmobil.co.uk/files/pa/uk/energy_outlook2004_10.pdf
Transportation is the single largest demand: " http://www.exxonmobil.co.uk/UK-English/Newsroom/UK_NR_Speech_EO_150904
.asp As shown here, transportation end uses remain the primary use of oil and over time we expect a greater portion of the oil barrel to be used in the transportation sector."
Even though there is an extended discussion of oil and other reserves (tar sands, shale, deep water reserves), the end result is that ExxonMobil does not project large-scale recovery of those sources through 2030.
Rue
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AJ,
Read the link. Talk about canards, that website presents and promotes on party lines. But none the less I was inspired so I signed the following:
http://johnconyers.campaignoffice.com/index.asp?Type=SUPERFORMS&SEC=%7
BFE949152-0CA1-4DC6-827B-B79533E7FE75%7D
Thanks. Any one interested just cut and paste the link.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Hey, if you honestly believe that the President lied and manipulated the US into the war with Saddam Hussein, then I'd say you are honor bound to sign the petition. More power to you.
I still do not believe it myself so I won't be signing but don't hesitate to do so yourself.
Personally, I think its political suicide to call for impeachment since many of the same democrats also supported the war resolution and at least didn't object strongly when President Clinton did similiarly for Desert Fox.
Let the games begin!
Andrew Lynch
I have to agree with you there. Impeaching the president would be a foolish gesture at best. There's no way the Dem's could actually remove him from office. It would only further polarize the electorate and would mostly likely become another circus of irrelevant bickering.
The Republican's tried such nonsense with Clinton. What good did it do? All it served to do was cause hatred and anguish on both sides over whether the president got his dick sucked or not. Granted, the accusations against Bush are bit more serious, but I doubt any kind of impeachment would deal with them in a substantial way. They'd focus on gimmicky emphemora, like the Downing Street Memo - it'd basically be a big television commercial.
The end result of the Clinton impeachment fiasco was a neutered presidency. It actually interfered with his ability to use his presidential power properly. It, arguably, interered with his ability to deal with the people and situations that led to 9/11. As badly as I want to see Bush and his goons out of office, I see no reason to make the same mistake again.
It seems to me the better course of action, for those of us who don't like where the president is taking us, is to try to wake people up. The fear and insecurity sparked by 9/11 are just now beginning to fade. If democracy is to work at all, people must be aware as a bare minimum.
From my personal experiency, most of the Bush supporters I've met don't even really have a clear picture of what he's been up to, much less where he's going. And I'm not saying they're stupid, just that the emotional appeal of the Bush message overwhelms their clarity. Nationalism is a powerful thing.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:
"Technically", we were still at war, just under a "ceasefire", so there reallyw as no need to "Declare War" again. All "laws" were followed.
Pardon me, but I think you may be incorrect on this point.I believe you'll find that the U.S. Congress has declared war on eleven occasions:
- War of 1812, against the U.K.
- Mexican-American War, against Mexico
- Spanish-American War, against Spain
- World War I, against Germany
- World War I, against Austria-Hungary
- World War II, against Japan
- World War II, against Germany
- World War II, against Italy
- World War II, against Bulgaria
- World War II, against Hungary
- World War II, against Romania (darn you, Axis minor allies)
And I think that's it.
Maybe being invited in by one recognized side in a local conflict, such as the former Yugoslavia, or Vietnam, is legal, maybe.
Maybe you get a pass for quelling insurrection, as Lincoln did, okay, there's some Consitutional support for that, although I'm not real comfortable with it.
But invading a country with the purpose of toppling a government long recognized, to say nothing of aided by, the U.S.?
No, sorry, that dog won't hunt.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:
"Technically", we were still at war, just under a "ceasefire", so there reallyw as no need to "Declare War" again. All "laws" were followed.
Pardon me, but I think you may be incorrect on this point.I believe you'll find that the U.S. Congress has declared war on eleven occasions:
- War of 1812, against the U.K.
- Mexican-American War, against Mexico
- Spanish-American War, against Spain
- World War I, against Germany
- World War I, against Austria-Hungary
- World War II, against Japan
- World War II, against Germany
- World War II, against Italy
- World War II, against Bulgaria
- World War II, against Hungary
- World War II, against Romania (darn you, Axis minor allies)
And I think that's it.
Maybe being invited in by one recognized side in a local conflict, such as the former Yugoslavia, or Vietnam, is legal, maybe.
Maybe you get a pass for quelling insurrection, as Lincoln did, okay, there's some Consitutional support for that, although I'm not real comfortable with it.
But invading a country with the purpose of toppling a government long recognized, to say nothing of aided by, the U.S.?
No, sorry, that dog won't hunt.
Neutrino - I think You are focusing on the wrong points here. The US congress formally authorized Military action against Iraq (see below).
We were still "Technically" at "War" with Iraq, just under a conditional "ceasefire" with Iraq.
This is what drives me crazy. People spend more time worrying about whether it was " Legal" or "Not Legal" and play the word game. It muddies the water too much. No wonder we all get so freaking confused. The debates become more about Rhetoric than about facts.
Timeline from first "War with Iraq":
Nov 29, 1990 UN Security Council authorizes force if Iraq doesnt withdraw from Kuwait by midnight EST Janu. 15.
Nov 30, 1990 Bush invites Tariq Aziz to Washington and offers to send Secretary of State James Baker to Baghdad.
Jan 9, 1991 Baker and Aziz meet in Geneva. The meeting is 6 hrs, but no results.
Jan 12, 1991 Congress votes to allow for US troops to be used in offensive operations.
Jan 15, 1991 The deadline set by the UN Resolution 678 for Iraq to withdraw.
Jan 16, 1991 First US government statement of Operation Desert-Storm made.
Marlin Fitzwater announces, "The liberation of Kuwait has begun..."
The air war started Jan 17 at 2:38 a.m. (local time) or January 16 at 6:38PM EST due to an 8 hour time difference, with an Apache helicopter attack.
US warplanes attack Baghdad, Kuwait and other military targets in Iraq.
Jan 17, 1991 Iraq launches first SCUD Missle attack.
Jan 30, 1991 US forces in the Gulf exceed 500,000.
Feb 6, 1991 Jordan King Hussein lashes out against American bombardments and supports Iraq.
Feb 13, 1991 US Bombers destroy a bunker complex in Baghdad with several hundred citizens inside. Nearly 300 die.
Feb 17, 1991 Tariq Aziz travels to Moscow to discuss possible negotiated end to the war.
Feb 22, 1991 President Bush issues an ultimatum of Feb 23 for Iraqi troops to withdraw from Kuwait.
Feb 23, 1991 Ground war begins with Marines, Army and Arab forces moving into Iraq and Kuwait.
Feb 25, 1991 Iraqi SCUD missle hits a US barracks in Saudi Arabia killing 27.
Feb 26, 1991 Kuwaiti resistence leaders declare they are in control of Kuwait City.
Feb 27, 1991 President Bush orders a cease fire effective at midnight Kuwaiti time.
Mar 3, 1991 Iraqi leaders formally accept cease fire terms
Mar 4, 1991 Ten Allied POWs freed
Mar 5, 1991 35 POWs released
Mar 8, 1991 First US combat forces return home.
I'm more concerned about the motives and less about whether or not the Politicians used the proper verbage.
Now you may say we didn't "Officially" Declare war in '91 because Congress didn't have every politician sign a piece of paper saying "Hey we are at war!". However, it's bullshit. Wh
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So is declaring war a 'mere' legal formality?
Jan 12, 1991 Congress votes to allow for US troops to be used in offensive operations.
Now you may say we didn't "Officially" Declare war in '91 because Congress didn't have every politician sign a piece of paper saying "Hey we are at war!". However, it's bullshit.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:Quote:So is declaring war a 'mere' legal formality?
Jan 12, 1991 Congress votes to allow for US troops to be used in offensive operations.
Now you may say we didn't "Officially" Declare war in '91 because Congress didn't have every politician sign a piece of paper saying "Hey we are at war!". However, it's bullshit.
LOL, Rue
, you summed it up nicely.Yes, Right or wrong,I do believe based on history, that is the case. Those folks who spend time determining if every military action is "Legal" or not, are just muddying the waters. What should have been debated is WHY?
The fact is, that while the peaceniks and intellectuals debate on whether a "War" is legal or not, Our boys and girls go. It's a waste of time, they still go.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME