Downing Street Memo- thoughts? - Page 8

rs_al · 06-17-2005, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by USN_Squid

Again, it is a FACT that some small amounts have been found and the mechanisms and intelligence to restart programs rapidly. As I've said numerous times, that tonage of weapons is irrelevant in my opinion. It doesn't take an 18 wheeler full of chemical agent to cause havok. Don't you remember the post 911 scare with Anthrax?

Here's a helpful tip:
WMD

rs_al · 06-17-2005, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by USN_Squid

I haven't seen that. Where did you read that? I have seen that Bush and Blair denounced the memos contents as preposterous, and Blair produced further documents proving it.

Quote:

Reuters correspondent Steve Holland asked, "On Iraq, the so-called Downing Street memo from July 2002 says intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military action. Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond?" President Bush did not address the issue of the intelligence and facts being "fixed" around a decision to go to war, but he did deny that he had, at the time of the memo, already decided to use military force against Saddam Hussein, saying "There's nothing farther from the truth." Bush also questioned the motives of whoever leaked the memo during the British election, saying "Well, I -- you know, I read kind of the characterizations of the memo, particularly when they dropped it out in the middle of his race. ... I'm not sure who 'they dropped it out' is, but -- I'm not suggesting that you all dropped it out there."

You can read the official white house press release, search for downing street memo to get it all with context.
(the quote above was taken from the Wikipedia page)

No, I don't know what he's getting at with the "dropped it out there" stuff either.

**USN_Squid** · 06-17-2005, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rs_al

Here's a helpful tip:
WMD

I see. Since you're a weapons expert please tell me exactly how much Vx is needed to shut down a city and bring our economy to a grinding halt?

**USN_Squid** · 06-17-2005, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rs_al

You can read the official white house press release, search for downing street memo to get it all with context.
(the quote above was taken from the Wikipedia page)

No, I don't know what he's getting at with the "dropped it out there" stuff either.

That just shows he didn't acknowedge the content as accurate, there's nothing there that states he believes it is authentic. Am I missing something?

rs_al · 06-17-2005, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by USN_Squid

That just shows he didn't acknowedge the content as accurate, there's nothing there that states he believes it is authentic. Am I missing something?

If they had any evidence it was not authentic, and they'd had over a month to gather some before this press conference, he would have said as much. Rather than answer it, he would have dismissed it out-of-hand, as he has before for other dubious claims. But he did answer it, and because he had nothing against the memo he tried to dismiss the conclusions drawn from it.

**USN_Squid** · 06-17-2005, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rs_al

If they had any evidence it was not authentic, and they'd had over a month to gather some before this press conference, he would have said as much. Rather than answer it, he would have dismissed it out-of-hand, as he has before for other dubious claims. But he did answer it, and because he had nothing against the memo he tried to dismiss the conclusions drawn from it.

I'm not sure it's up to them to prove a negative, but I guess we'll see. Here are the questions submitted by Conyers and the rest. If they choose to answer it will be interesting to see:

1)Do you or anyone in your administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?
2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization to go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?
3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?
4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?
5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?

**USN_Squid** · 06-17-2005, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rs_al

Neg in november 2001 everyone was like "Wtf does Iraq have to do with anything?". SH was glued on to september 11th months later.

I know. I was there. Don't bull**** me.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."Letter to President Clinton, signed by:-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."Letter to President Bush, Signed by:-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

rs_al · 06-17-2005, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by USN_Squid

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
...etc etc

Hold on there a minute. The old bait and switch might have worked with Osama Bin Laden, but I didn't fall for that one either.

Here's what you are replying to:

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

I'm having a conversation with a puppet. In November 2001 John Kerry and many others were calling Iraq the logical "next step" in the GWOT. If anyone's attempting to rewrite history, it's the liberals who call liar liar and retroactively establish criteria for the invasion that DIDN'T EXIST AT THE TIME.

You have
a. Dodged the original issue, which was the topic of my reply, and that was establishing a connection between 9-11 and Iraq. WMDs were not mentioned, nor do they have anything to do with it.
b. Shown that WMD's were said to be in Iraq many, many times, which leejo and others are trying to downplay now that it is becoming increasingly obvious they were not.

Not to mention there's a two year span, which includes Nov 2001, that doesn't have any quotes... The list is certainly impressive, but I am left asking, what's the point meat man?

**RandomGuy** · 06-17-2005, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis

[...]there are ALWAYS plans under development to attack just about any nation you can think of. Those plans are often reviewed and updated as the global political climate shifts.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that after 9/11 the US began updating and strategizing attacking Iraq. I bet the same was done for Iran, Syria, Egypt, and even Israel!

There is a big difference between someone at the pentagon doing the same job they've been doing for years versus the president actively pursuing an invasion. The series of events leading up to "Operation Iraqi Freedom" were clearly more than the pentagon updating their paperwork.

**Apophis** · 06-17-2005, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

There is a big difference between someone at the pentagon doing the same job they've been doing for years versus the president actively pursuing an invasion. The series of events leading up to "Operation Iraqi Freedom" were clearly more than the pentagon updating their paperwork.

See, I don't know if it was "clearly" more than the pentagon updating their paperwork. I'm not sure of the actual details surrounding how, when, and to what degree they do this planning in situations such as the post 9/11 era. I'm not sure if the President and Joint Chiefs are normally part of these briefings or at what level they become part of them.

No offense, Random, but why is it so clear? Because someone who hates the administration said so? There is so much spin and political hatemongering going on these days I have just decided that EVERYONE is full of crap. 20 years from now I can watch the History Channel and actually get a better perspective on everything that has happened. My like or dislike of the administration isn't going to change based on conjecture, rumor, spin, or any TV/Radio "entertainment show" host trying to grind an axe to get ratings.

**USN_Squid** · 06-18-2005, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rs_al

Hold on there a minute. The old bait and switch might have worked with Osama Bin Laden, but I didn't fall for that one either.

Here's what you are replying to:

You have
a. Dodged the original issue, which was the topic of my reply, and that was establishing a connection between 9-11 and Iraq. WMDs were not mentioned, nor do they have anything to do with it.
b. Shown that WMD's were said to be in Iraq many, many times, which leejo and others are trying to downplay now that it is becoming increasingly obvious they were not.

Not to mention there's a two year span, which includes Nov 2001, that doesn't have any quotes... The list is certainly impressive, but I am left asking, what's the point meat man?

My recollection is that nobody ever tried to pin 911 on Iraq. Bush has never said that that I've read. I know I've never read anything that showed Iraq's involvement. Sorry if I missed the mark with the quotes, but they were pretty consistent from both left and right from 1991 until oh, about election season.

**DudeMan** · 06-18-2005, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by verbose

I agree that those with the power to make the world a better place have a certain level of responsibility to try and do so. But, when playing world police, it's bad form to violate international agreements and thumb your nose at international bodies. If the local police said "bah, playing by the rules makes our job too hard. Screw the rules and the rulemakers. Yeah, we helped make the rules, but they're not convenient any more.", nobody would accept that. Policing the world is no different, and the US Government rightly deserves scorn for overstepping its bounds.

It's also wrong to lie to the world and your own nation. If a government is going to take military action on someone else's turf, and is justified in doing so, they should have no problem being completely open about their motivations. It's hard to cast blame on any nations who allied with the USA in military action against SH, because they very easily could have been as misled by the US Govt. as the general US populace was.

Yeah, removing SH from power is a good thing. The way in which it was done was not kosher though. We all know that the ends most definitely do not justify the means.

EDIT: al's post snuck in while I was composing. It appears we think alike.

And for fun:

"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to mis-attribute this quote to Voltaire."
-- Avram Grumer, rec.arts.sf.written, May 2000
http://www.classroomtools.com/voltaire.htm

actuLLY, IF YOU LOOK AT ANY LEGAL SYSTEM, THE LAWS HAE TO CHANGE WITH THE TIMES, your laws in the US are updated when the need arrises, our laws in the UK are reformed, why is international law different, sadam was playing the international crowd like puppets, and because the french and germans didnt care enough to want to do anything he got away with it for decades,

its time the law was changed, sadam broke UN sanctions, but the UN being the no bollocks force that it is, just imposed new sanctions. there was never any threat of a solution.

im sorry i still disagree, and ill state it again, the removal of sadam hussien from power, by the countries who deemed it necessary, can be called nothing other than a good thing. it just seemes, that those of us who dont now tyrrany, (myself included) cannot fully apreciate what it was like,

have you not noticed that even with the suicide bombings by militants, (who its beleived are not even iraqi but syrian) people in iraq went to vote, are on the whole glad sadam has gone, even though they have the same questions as many of us.....

Root · 06-18-2005, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeMan

its time the law was changed, sadam broke UN sanctions, but the UN being the no bollocks force that it is, just imposed new sanctions. there was never any threat of a solution.

Fair comment Dudeman, but consider this. International law gets updated, and suddenly theres a US carrier off the coast of Ireland and Spetsnaz start carrying out special ops to get rid of trash like Blair becuase Ireland has been unlawfully invaded.

While this is happening, UN aid gets send to Zimbabwe because nothing is wrong there according to the same international law.

Absurdly far fetched, but just enough so to illustrate my point. Is the alternative a single world government? I dread the thought of it myself. I think of that and I see visions of vader, palpatine ordering stormtroopers to carry out raids in the middle of the night to make people disappear just for *thinking* anti government thoughts.

Here's another thought. Instead of invading Iraq, causing untold grief, installing a puppet regieme and calling it freedom, why didn't someone get solid intel and send a special ops team in to kill Hussein? Less mess, less fuss, but tragically a lot less political point scoring.

I refuse to believe intelligence agencies are so deficient that they didn't know (as in possession of hard facts) that there were no WMD's. No one had business interfering in Iraq. They are a sovereign nation. They did not present a threat to the US, UK or any of the other invading countries. If they did, there are sufficient measures in place. If Iraq had a bunch of long range chemical rockets on the launch pad and there was any indication of them being used, I'd be all for a tactical nuclear strike. Using WMD's to *respond* to the use (or threat of use) of these same weapons is perfectly reasonable. If someone is going to punch you in the face, you don't let them, you kick them in the balls first.

The problem with Iraq, just like the Falklands and every other conflict, is career politicians. Government service should be an honour, and it should be something a person makes sacrifices to do. People should give up their job go and serve for a while, and then go back to their regular lives. Unfortunatly the people who get their names on ballot papers all over the "civilised" world are in it for the perks and the power. Cut their pay down to sensible levels (£20k for a UK MP), and you might start getting statesmen instead of politicians.

Root

**phyllis** · 06-18-2005, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Root

Government service should be an honour, and it should be something a person makes sacrifices to do. People should give up their job go and serve for a while, and then go back to their regular lives. Unfortunatly the people who get their names on ballot papers all over the "civilised" world are in it for the perks and the power. Cut their pay down to sensible levels (£20k for a UK MP), and you might start getting statesmen instead of politicians.

Off topic...but in 8 pages, I agree with the above statement more than any other post

Crikey! I wish I could just vote myself a benefits and pay raise !

**RandomGuy** · 06-18-2005, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis

20 years from now I can watch the History Channel and actually get a better perspective on everything that has happened.

You don't have that luxury. You have to decide if you think you are being deceived and to take action or not. In the least you will have to cast a few ballots in the next 20 years. Even then are you sure the entire truth will be laid bare (Warren commission anyone?)

Besides, don't you know that the history channel is a left-wing pinko rag?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links