The Downing Street Memo: Just another empty Anti-War Leftist canard

POSTED BY: lynchaj
UPDATED: Sunday, June 19, 2005 09:05
VIEWED: 15313
PAGE 7 of 9

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE

CONNORFLYNN

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 11:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
Yup, there are precisely three, and I noted those by quoting the correct clause from the Constitution. Do you think that we invaded Iraq in order to i)execute the laws of the Union (where we have no jurisdiction), ii) suppress insurrection (in a territory not part of the US), or iii) repel invasion (there having been no invasion of the US by the Iraqis since, oh, ever)? Those are the only three you get to choose from, and let's face it, none of them fit.

There are NOT only 3, and as below states it is an INCREDIBLY grey area as there is no definition of what exactly entails "Imminent danger" and leaves it open to interpretation :

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Now if you choose to ignore this because it would not fit your agenda. So be it..LOL. But please don't completely discount ALL of what the Constitution says in these regards. You have used words like "ONLY" and "Just 3 choices" and that my friend is a flagrant and blatant falsehood, no different then the "Imminent danger" that Iraq posed to the US falsehood. The Administration used that EXACT verbage many many times in the run up to the Iraq War.

CONNORFLYNN

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 12:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Although I often vote Democrat, I don't always vote that way. I didn't vote for Clinton, and it had nothing to do with Monica, so I believe that I... and many other ppl on this baord- are fact-driven, not ideology-driven when it comes to questioning Bush's motives.

That is an interesting statement. I think we can judge people on their actions and deeds but trying to judge them on their motives is extremely difficult at best.

Do you know for a fact that President Bush, in his heart, deliberately mislead the US? That is the essence of the "Bush Lied" mythos.

How could you or anyone possibly know that?

President Bush may have just been stuck in an impossible situation and doing the best he could with the intelligence he had at the time. No one could possibly know the difference because the actions would be similar.

Recall the situation the US found itself in 2002. The Al Qaeda terrorists had just done the most brazen attack on the west anyone had ever seen. It left people in the US literally stunned for weeks or months. Now, in that light, look at the intelligence at the time from Iraq. Yes, it was knowingly imperfect, as intelligence always is. Saddam did not help matters by obscuring the facts even more.

President Clinton and his administration was concerned about the "nexus" of rogue regimes, WMD, and terrorists. He struck Iraq on those facts in 1998. The "nexus" argument went from a theoretical possibility to a FACT on 9/11. It probably did not involve Saddam but likely did the Taliban (they at least gave Al Qaeda harbor), but all the pieces were there for another disaster, except next time even more horrific.

In the scenario I just outlined ANY president would have had to act against Iraq. The UN route just was not working.

Thanks!

Andrew Lynch

Except for the fact that Iraq was in no way shape or form insinuating that it was preparing to attack us. The Administration USED 9/11 to go into Iraq under the "theory" that they would rid Iraq of WMD's to prevent Iraq from selling them to terrorists. We would have been much better off finishing in Afghanistan and actually catching Bin Laden and securing our borders. While doing that we could also have spent the billions of dollars developing our intelligence so that the Intel we receive could at the very least be corraborated rather then fabricated.

I contend that, it never mattered whether or not Saddam had WMD's. The Administration was going to take Saddam down regardless of the cost prior to 9/11.

That's where we get into the issue, Is it up to the USA to throw their weight around, spend American lives to overthrow a dictator, who's own country should rise up against him and in due time would? Is it up to us to bear the cost burden of such an action based on the Ideology that we need to preserve American Dominance in the World?

No. It's not up to us to do that. It's a dangerous path to travel down. What do we achieve by trying to "Preserve American Dominance" ? The Ill will of the dominees.

Many people may think the lack of WMD's in Iraq is a small deal. To me, it was everything. It broke my trust in my government (Both Dems and Republicans). It broke the World's trust in the US (Contrary to popular opinion, the World's opinion does matter and I'm not talking about governments). It cost the valuable lives of Americans and Iraqis.

All for a pre-meditated Agenda.

CONNORFLYNN

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 1:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Except for the fact that Iraq was in no way shape or form insinuating that it was preparing to attack us.

I have to press your assertion as it is the heart of the premise.

How do you know that? How CAN you know that?

Saddam was merrily marching around his "Feyadeen Saddam" militia, firing up the IIS, and busily making preparations for *something*. How could anyone have known for sure that a WMD revenge attack was not in the planning?

There is some evidence (not conclusive) that Iraq was involved in the 1993 WTC attack.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

Also, we didn't see the 9/11 attacks coming although maybe we should have in retrospect. How do you know a similiar "blind spot" was not being exploited?

Thanks!

Andrew Lynch

Look, How many of Saddam's Missiles could reach the US? How many jets did Saddam get off the ground? How many soldiers surrenderd before a shot was fired? How many of his missile batteries did we bomb PRIOR to actual Military invasion? Saddam was impotent. We mowed through his armies like fat kids through a cheesecake.

Nobody and I mean nobody in the US military or the US was even a little bit worried about Saddams military. The Administration used the fear generated from 9/11 to push forth their agenda to take Saddam out and establish centralized military bases. It wasn't because he was a threat.

Hans Blix and crew said there was NO evidence that WMD's existed in Iraq and the "tard" that I am, I didn't believe him because I placed trust in my government.

The fact that the "Some Non-conclusive evidence" about the '93 WTC attack is being brought up now, as a form of defense, is wrong in light of the REAL evidence which IS pretty damn conclusive. No WMD's were ever found in Iraq and Hans Blix was correct. They've stopped searching for them. Noone has been held accountable.

All I heard was a big "Oops, we screwed up" from Colin Powell.

I'm not anti-war. I'm anti-agenda war. We went into Iraq for an agenda. If you can truly tell me with a straight face, that GWB's Administration REALLY believed that Saddam was a REAL and credible threat to the US and weren't REALLY just focused on establishing long term bases in Iraq to pursue military goals within the Middle East. Then we can stop discussing this now.

It would be pointless to continue. You are set in your opinion and I'm still searching for the truth and some accountability.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 5:12 PM

I have been, I think, quite reasonable and factual in my responses. But at this point, the only ideology-driven person I see in this thread is AJ.

While there were uncertainties about whether Saddam has accounted for stockpiles of old, by-then-useless WMD, Iraq did not pose an imminent threat to the USA in any way, shape, or form. That was perfectly well-known before the invasion no amount of data selection will ever show otherwise. Try it, AJ. Show us that Saddam posed an imminet threat to the USA I don't want to hear maybes and might-haves.

And then, Bush used assertions that had been proven wrong even before the invasion. Take yellowcake, for example. Tenet told Bush to remove references to that at least twice. But Bush persisted and inserted it into speeches again. The "explanation" for that? "We forgot"!

And then there was Bush's insistence that Saddam allow UNMOVIC inspectors in, and that he allow access to all of his palaces. That was granted but then UNMOVIC was forced out of Iraq, job near completion, by the pending US invasion.

The only person who does not seem to be taking facts into account is AJ. At this point, it's talking to an ideologue- there's no point in going further.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 5:23 PM

Quote:
Also, we didn't see the 9/11 attacks coming although maybe we should have in retrospect. How do you know a similiar "blind spot" was not being exploited?

You are just pointing and gibbering at an emtpy box. After all, something might be there! Or might have been there! Following your logic- why, we could have been attacked by aliens! After all, there 's no data there either! Dang, they're incredibly sneaky, exploiting our blind spots like that!

If you didn't see 9-11 coming, then you are stupid. I saw it coming, I was not in the least surprised, and I don't have all the info that the President supposedly had (including, BTW, a memo pointing to attack on commercial jetliner). Don't you wonder why Bush resisted the 9-11 commission and had to be shamed into an investigation by the families of the victims? Why he refused to appear under oath, and had to have Cheney holding his hand? Why the air traffic control tapes, and the tapes of air traffic controller depositions, were destroyed? OF course you wouldn't wonder, because Bush is so honest!

SHINY

Thursday, June 16, 2005 2:17 PM

Here's a very balanced analysis from Slate:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2120886/

The verdict: the DSM is only mildly important when it comes to providing evidence about the administration's alleged duplicity, but it's quite important as a primary historical document and a case study of how government officials make bad decisions.

Jayne, your mouth is talkin. Might want to look into that.

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 16, 2005 7:43 PM

The article may be "balanced", but not necessarily accurate. (That's may be like saying that starting with 2+2=5 and 2+2=6, a balanced conclusion is that 2+2=5.5) Here are three instances where the author may be drawing unwarranted conclusions.

First of all, the article says that "everybody" knew war was coming anyway. Then, it proceeds to quote articles from a very select group: left-of-center skeptics of the Bush administration who were willing to believe the worst of the Administration and who were, unfortunately, correct. Most people believed what the Administration was insisting on at the time- war was the last option. So, most people didn't know, and most people were in fact deceived.

The second error is where the author quotes various British... and by extension, American.... officials who were convinced that Saddam had WMD. These people may not have all been in the loop on the real deal. I got a smarmy reply from Feinstein, one of my Senators who sits on the Intelligence Committee, saying "I know things that you don't know". Well, it turns out she was misinformed by both the Office of Special Plans and Tenet who both reported back to the President through a very short chain of command. Although the various ministers and officials talked about what they believed to be true, their ultimate source of information may have not been independent of bias. I would need to know who got their information from whom, and whether it was first-hand or filtered.

The third thing that I find a little (quite frankly) stupid and un-insightful about the article is that it does not address the UNMOVIC inspections. No provisions were being made for what was to happen if UNMOVIC found Saddam in substantial compliance. The fact that the invasion was rushed to occur just before the final report tells me that Bush & Co had no intention to call off invasion under any circumstance. He showed no planning in this area ahead of time or even near-term. What was missing from the discussions is even more telling than what was discussed.

There is more to these memos than one or two words ("fixed" or "fixed around"). Superficial articles like Slate's don't add anything to the discussion.

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, June 16, 2005 7:58 PM

Hey, Signy, or anyone else who can help me: I was o.d.-ing on MSNBC yesterday (God knows why, I've never done it before! I blame my old friend Ron Reagan who's got a show that comes on every couple of hours over there) and amidst the flashes of news about the "7 new memos" a quote, apparently from one of them, was flashed on the screen for about half a second talking about a discussion of how to phrase our demands so that Saddam would not comply. Anybody got a link?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 16, 2005 10:34 PM

No, but it sure is a quote worth bird-dogging down. If I find it, I will definitely post it!

HKCAVALIER

Friday, June 17, 2005 12:37 AM

Hey, I found it!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1648758,00.html

"14. It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject (because he is unwilling to accept unfettered access) and which would not be regarded as unreasonable by the international community. However, failing that (or an Iraqi attack) we would be most unlikely to achieve a legal base for military action by January 2003."

I'm having a hard time coming up with the words to describe how this makes me feel. This is just disgusting. It's fraud. In no way was war a "last resort" for Bush & co. as they said it was. It was they're first priority, all they had to do was establish plausible deniability to move ahead. And they did. Y'know, AJ, I have never said I hate these people, but I hate them for this.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE