Also -
Had there surfaced memorandums/plans for a post-invasion strategy the media/anti-USA/Bush crowd would be barking at the “Obvious USA Imperialistic Plans for the Conquer of Iraq and Stealing Their OIL.”
No matter the actual scenario, the USA would be cast as the villian. By the way, I am not convinced the action was initiated w/out a post-Invasion work-up. Unlike so many, I do not “feel entitled” to know every facet of this action prior to it being enacted.
Also having this plan in advance and having this memo that says that the British had the impresion that the US administration was determined to invade and was ready to “fit the facts” around that could just as easily have been put as determined to deal with Saddam once and for all and was setting about to make its case. I mean “fit the facts” to the case or make your case are very different in terms of tone. Perhaps, this particular official disagreed with the US approach and his or her feelings were coming out when they typed it up.
Also, I note that all the shrill outcries against the US invasion were not saying BUT Saddam is not a threat. He has no wmds. The debate was never about that. It was about how war is wrong, how the sanctitity of the UN, how the international law, the dangerous precedent, blah blah blah.
Witness the continued efforts of Britain, France and Germany to deal with Iran and continue to notice the continued “revelations” that Iran lied about is programs, or misrepresented its actions or whoops actually had developed some plutonium. How much longer will these three continue to go through the embarrassment of being made fools of over and over and over again. Where is the stick to go with all the carrots? What is the result of all this “dialogue” liaising negotiations consultations blah blah blah?
[quote=“fred smith”]
Also, I note that all the shrill outcries against the US invasion were not saying BUT Saddam is not a threat. He has no wmds. The debate was never about that. It was about how war is wrong, how the sanctitity of the UN, how the international law, the dangerous precedent, blah blah blah.[/quote]
Not true. 1. Prior to the “pre-emptive strike” EX-CIA Republican Scott Ritter came to my school and told a bunch of us that Saddam was no longer a WMD threat. 2. Joe Wilson’s wife was outed after he pointed out that Iraq didn’t get any yellow cake from Niger. 3. This memo indicates that at minimum the director of MI6 thought the case for Saddam being much of a threat was slim, the presence of a “case” implying the presence of a debate.
There was actually debate about what kind of threat Saddam was, you may have chosen to ignore it (or others may have chosen for you not to hear about it), but it was happening.
Anyway having pissed off all my liberal friends for supporting Clinton’s impeachment for lying to a grand jury, I would eagerly support Bush’s impeachment for lying to Congress (also illegal). I’m afraid the Democrats are too complicit in this whole affair for them to want too much light thrown on the matter, hence I’m still not holding my breath.
You have missed out on the news. Joe Wilson was not outed by anyone in the administration nor did he prove that Iraq did not buy yellowcake or try to buy it from Niger. Wilson’s report has been totally discredited and the British still stand by their claim. We had to back down because they could not give us the source since it was third-party but they knew and they still know and they have not backed down.
Scott Ritter was no longer in any official capacity during the time of Bush’s decision to attack Iraq. In fact, it was very strange that he managed to do such an about face on Saddam. Some have pointed out that a movie project he was heading up was funded strangely enough by the Oil for Food program. Got it? Saddam basically could have bought him off.
[quote=“fred smith”]You have missed out on the news. Joe Wilson was not outed by anyone in the administration nor did he prove that Iraq did not buy yellowcake or try to buy it from Niger. Wilson’s report has been totally discredited and the British still stand by their claim. We had to back down because they could not give us the source since it was third-party but they knew and they still know and they have not backed down.
Scott Ritter was no longer in any official capacity during the time of Bush’s decision to attack Iraq. In fact, it was very strange that he managed to do such an about face on Saddam. Some have pointed out that a movie project he was heading up was funded strangely enough by the Oil for Food program. Got it? Saddam basically could have bought him off.[/quote]
You said no debate was occuring about Iraq’s threat.
Both these examples and the other one, were provided to counter your argument that no debate was occuring on these matters. I, frankly, don’t trust anyone who was a CIA agent or whose wife is an agent. I merely posted these examples to DISPROVE your assertion that there was no debate on the threat posed by Saddam. Regardless of motives or veracity of claims, there was debate, you should stop saying there wasn’t.
FYI
Top-secret documents suggest that the Bush administration “fixed” intelligence about Iraq WMD and that British Prime Minister Tony Blair sought legal cover for a predetermined invasion. Follow debate about the memo.
Q&A: Michael Smith, Sunday Times Reporter Who Broke the Story
Memo: U.S. Lacked Full Postwar Iraq Plan (The Post, June 12, 2005)
British Intelligence Warned of Iraq War (The Post, May 13, 2005)
The Downing Street Memo (The Sunday Times, May 1)
World Opinion: Could Links Sink Tony Blair? (May 3)
World Opinion: Downing Street Memo Story Won’t Die (June 7)
World Opinion: Deep Throat of Downing Street (June 14)
Talking Points: Democrats Seek Road Map to Downing Street (June 14)
White House Briefing: The Second Memo (June 13)
White House Briefing: The Memo Comes in From the Cold (June 8)
Media Notes: Iraq Memo Gets Second Look (June 16)
The above summary and links are found at: washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … rrer=email
Bodo
More news from our Allies in the coalition of the wilting…
The Sunday Times - Britain
June 19, 2005
British bombing raids were illegal, says Foreign Office
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,2087-1660300_1,00.html
Michael Smith
[quote]A SHARP increase in British and American bombing raids on Iraq in the run-up to war
Unless bombs don’t count as force or unless someone besides the Commander in Chief authorises these bombing campaigns, what we have is a liar in the White House.
Cheers.
Following is a highlight from the White House transcript: (Q: When are they gonna stop making these things public? A: Soon, very soon.)
[quote=“THE WHITE HOUSE”]
Office of the Press Secretary
October 16, 2002
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT SIGNING OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION
The East Room
11:17 A.M. EDT
…
I have not ordered the use of force. I hope the use of force will not become necessary.
…[/quote]
First of all this money is not “missing” it is “unacconted for” as you have so rightly pointed out. Compare that with the $69 billion that went through the UN Oil for Food program. Compare that with the 500,000 to 1 million Iraqis who died because of the corruption. Compare that with the fact that the Oil for Food program was the largest UN program with strong vested interests in maintaining itself and its bureaucrats high salaries. Compare that with the fact that these monies might have been responsible for much of the opposition in the UN to the plan to remove Saddam not concerns over “international law” or whether Saddam had wmds or not. Every major nation bar none believed that Saddam had wmds. the UN inspectors believed that he was hiding something, but they did not know what. Everyone said Saddam was NOT in compliance.[/quote]
I believe I understand your point, Fred. The apparent Oil-for-Food corruption/scandal is appalling. But, as a US citizen and tax payer, I am disgusted with the lack of accountability for the 8 billion of my tax dollars. That is money that could have been spent in the US (if not in Iraq) where I have a hardworking brother who has a family (4 kids), and who has been underemployed for more than a year now as have many other people who were put out of work when the dot com bubble burst.
Furthermore, I guess my tendency is toward isolationism, and pacifiism rather than globilization and interventionism. Therefore, I did not support the Iraq intervention (I did see the obvious necessity for going into Afghanistan).
Quite right. That is after all why the US wanted to go to the UN precisely BECAUSE it wanted to invade. There would have been no reason to go to the UN if there had been no plan to deal with Saddam once and for all after 12 years of dicking around about this, that and the other. Remember Clinton committed the US to regime change with the Iraq Freedom Act in 1997. So suddenly, the British have the idea that the US was already planning to get rid of Saddam? Say it isn’t so. What gave anyone that idea?[/quote]
Okay. Didn’t know about the Iraq Freedom Act of 1997, but I’ll take your word for it.
Untrue. The memo is eight months before the invasion. The British had the impression that there was very little planning but hey you cannot have this both ways. On the one hand, you are saying that the US was wrong to have this plan to invade Iraq even before consulting the UN and then on the other you are criticizing it for not planning enough even though you are suggesting earlier that doing so before going to the UN would have been wrong. So which is it? Are you complaining that the US was too Machiavellian or not Machiavellian enough?[/quote]
Not Machiavellian enough, Fred. Actually, it is my understanding that the military is supposed to plan for all phases of war - pre-invasion, actual invasion, and post-invasion BEFORE starting a war. The Pentagon which insisted on controlling everything even the rebuilding, failed to plan adequately and realistically for the aftermath of invasion. It is therefore a gross failure for which the Pentagon, and Donald Rumsfeld, and President Bush are ultimately accountable.
Bodo
[Quote fixed by moderator]
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Also -
Had there surfaced memorandums/plans for a post-invasion strategy the media/anti-USA/Bush crowd would be barking at the “Obvious USA Imperialistic Plans for the Conquer of Iraq and Stealing Their OIL.”
No matter the actual scenario, the USA would be cast as the villian. By the way, I am not convinced the action was initiated w/out a post-Invasion work-up. Unlike so many, I do not “feel entitled” to know every facet of this action prior to it being enacted.[/quote]
Tainan Cowboy, I take issue with you lumping the media with anti-USA and anti-Bush constituencies. While it may be true there are some folks who fall into all three categories, it is not true that those who are anti-BUSH/Bush administration/Policy are anti-USA and that if you are mainstream media you are anti-USA or anti-BUSH.
I am sure it is obvious by now, that I don’t agree with many of the President’s foreign policies. But, I am thoroughly American, and Pro-USA. I want to see my country prosper, and my country-men & women succeed as I want to enjoy a safe, peaceful life. I thoroughly appreciate the freedom that our form of government, and economic model provides.
I find it puzzling that you identify with Bush and his policies so strongly. After all, you most probably are not earning more than $250,000 in salary (I could be wrong ). I believe that Mr. Bush represents the interests of large corporations (Oil especially), and wealthy individuals before the interests of the average American person. I am not saying that he isn’t, in a misguided way, trying to put forward the interests of America/Americans. But, my understanding of his basic philosophy is that of “trickle down economics (Reagonomics).” I don’t subscribe to this point of view. I don’t believe what is good for big business is necessarily good for the common person or the environment or for the world in general. Although I am sure that in some or perhaps many instances it can be.
