Why isn't there more talk of the smoking gun memo?

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Oh really? If Tony knew that the whole "WMD" and "al_Qaida link" rationale for the invasion was a scam why did he go along with it? Doesn't that make him a sort of co-conspirator? Didn't you guys just re-elect him?

Absolutely, he is. And I certainly didn't vote for him...with the opposition available it almost looks more like he won by default...

[Ramo]

If Dear Leader sold the war on democracy and freedom, there probably would've been at least slightly more emphasis on insuring that the invasion would result in democracy and freedom. From at least from the Dems, if not the Administration itself. There might actually have been a plan (trusting Chalabi to take over doesn't constitute a plan, nor was it particularly democratic or free). By intentionally conflating Saddam and Osama, you squash public debate over the nature of the occupation.

[Slaughtermeyer]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Absolutely, he is. And I certainly didn't vote for him...with the opposition available it almost looks more like he won by default...

Tony Blair's party received only 37 percent of the vote. It was only because of the way districts are drawn that he was able to retain a majority in Parliament. Similar to the way Bush was able to win an electoral college majority in 2000 without a majority of the vote.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Absolutely, he is. And I certainly didn't vote for him...with the opposition available it almost looks more like he won by default...

I didn't vote for Bush either. The Republican dirty tricks (the "swift boat" whatever) squad took care of Kerry.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ramo
If Dear Leader sold the war on democracy and freedom, there probably would've been at least slightly more emphasis on insuring that the invasion would result in democracy and freedom. From at least from the Dems, if not the Administration itself. There might actually have been a plan (trusting Chalabi to take over doesn't constitute a plan, nor was it particularly democratic or free). By intentionally conflating Saddam and Osama, you squash public debate over the nature of the occupation.

I'm not certain that if Bush had offered "democracy and freedom" as the reason for invading Iraq that the majority would have accepted it. I think the consensus would have been that US forces should be reserved for the war on terror. Others would have suggested that the Sudan or even some other area should have had higher priority.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Sikander
This memo doesn't seem to add anything to what we already know. It seems more of an excercize in keeping people angry about what they cannot change. Consider that both Blair and Bush were both recently re-elected for instance.

Yep people don't seem to give a stuff.

[Drake Tungsten]

Getting Saddam is actually an offensive foul and the shot doesn't count. Terrorism gets two technical foul shots and Al Queda gets to take the ball out of bounds. So -2 there, with the chance for a basket now we're up to -4, or -5 if they make the 3 pointer.

"Hurting Al Queda" doesn't count because we didn't have a valid pretext to go invade Afghanistan, until 9/11. So Bush didn't do crap, pre-9/11, so that gives him 0 points there. Any President would have invaded Afghanistan, probably would have even gotten Bin Laden.

So really it's a -2 or -4 to 0 according to your silly game.

This entire post is made worthless by the fact that you turned it into a basketball analogy. What kind of man are you?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Wow, you almost got me to respond to you, Aggie. Quality work. I might've done it if I didn't think discussing politics would ruin our friendship...

Hey man, it's business and not personal.

You're still #1 Engrish teacher in my book, and will remain so despite your weird Nebraskan politics.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Why isn't there more talk of the smoking gun memo?

Originally posted by Oerdin
Could this "fact fixing" be the indication of a pattern?

I told you that four years ago.

[Ramo]

I'm not certain that if Bush had offered "democracy and freedom" as the reason for invading Iraq that the majority would have accepted it. I think the consensus would have been that US forces should be reserved for the war on terror. Others would have suggested that the Sudan or even some other area should have had higher priority.

I was responding to Dan et al.'s premise that how Shrub justified the war doesn't matter at all. I quite agree, if the war were made on freedom and democracy, perhaps there could've been a consensus to intervene in a region where human rights concerns were far more pressing, such as in Darfur (or Burma, etc.).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It's not like he was just lying about getting a blow job. He lied about his desires to go to war then deliberately decieved everyone in order to go on his personal crusade. What's worse is he knowingly doctored the evidence and now tries to blame the CIA for his own actions.

So did Clinton in order to invade Yugoslavia.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Yeah, we just sat back while Al Qaeda attacked the WTC,

9/11 occured in 2001. AQ never attacked the WTC before then.

[MrFun]

Why is it taking FOUR years to find one person, anyway?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by MrFun
Why is it taking FOUR years to find one person, anyway?

Yeah, they should have sent a Texas Ranger to the Afghani-Pakistani border area (only one - two or more would be unfair). He would quiclky find him, catch him with his lasso and bring him back to justice humming "I'm a poor lonesome cowboy".

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Slaughtermeyer

Tony Blair's party received only 37 percent of the vote. It was only because of the way districts are drawn that he was able to retain a majority in Parliament. Similar to the way Bush was able to win an electoral college majority in 2000 without a majority of the vote.

When Labour won in 1997, a landslide victory and certainly the largest post-war majority, they only got 43% of the vote. The governing party almost never gets the majority of the vote under the first past the post system.