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

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


Well, I was going to bring up the fact that the Republican controlled Senate supported Clinton's war in Kosovo, but why bother? It's not like you're actually going to listen.

Not much of a war, was it?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GePap
I have to agree with Ogie here that when I read fixed I do not think "made up". I think much the same way Dauphin does- speak in half truths, not in full lies. Ignore the inconvinient and always trump the parts that back your arguement.

Like on the Aluminum tubes. Saddam did buy them. The way you "fix that" is to claim that any evidence they might have non-nuclear uses is obviously an Iraqi cover story because the ONLY possible use is in a nuclear program, DUH! and then just hope the press is too stupid or spineless never ever to question your questionable statements.

And, well, that is exactly what went on.

But

But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

"fixed around" does not mean the same as "fixed". It indicates that the policy was being used to drive the facts, not the other way around.

[Dauphin]

I don't see the distinction you are trying to draw in the use of the word 'fixed'. Mainly because I agree with both parts and do not understand why they are not the saying the same thing.

[Agathon]

Because in England people do not use the term "fixed around" that way in contexts like this. More importantly, they don't tolerate that kind of ridiculous ambiguity in memos like this.

If I'm fixing the facts around the policy that means that I am arranging them around it to suit it, not that I am fixing up some facts that happen to be around the policy.

Saying that it is a "fix up" of the facts (as some on the left have said) is also not entailed by what it says. All it says is that the facts were being determined or arranged to suit the policy, not the other way around. That is what the sensible critics claim - not that the facts were being deliberately altered to suit Bush, but that they were not directing the policy.

But we knew this already. Powell had some pics of trucks which could have been there for any reason - they were interpreted in the light of what the US wanted to believe, rather than on their own merits.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Agathon
If I'm fixing the facts around the policy that means that I am arranging them around it to suit it, not that I am fixing up some facts that happen to be around the policy.

Saying that it is a "fix up" of the facts (as some on the left have said) is also not entailed by what it says. All it says is that the facts were being determined or arranged to suit the policy, not the other way around. That is what the sensible critics claim - not that the facts were being deliberately altered to suit Bush, but that they were not directing the policy.

But we knew this already. Powell had some pics of trucks which could have been there for any reason - they were interpreted in the light of what the US wanted to believe, rather than on their own merits.

You aren't making the distinction clear to me because I am of the opinion that Bush and co had an idée fixe that meant that any facts would either be interpreted as proof of their believes, or ignored. Facts being altered is forging not fixing.

I'm not trying to be difficult, I really don't get your point.

[Agathon]

Either the policy is fixed around the facts (i.e we use the facts to determine what to do) or we fix the facts around the policy (arrange the facts so that they seem to support a policy we have already decided on, whatever the facts themselves might tell us). I'm not claiming that they did any more than the latter.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin


That is so sad! Oggie is trying to deny th perfectly obvious and fully STATED facts from the memo.

I defy you to show where in the memo it was STATED that the inteligence data was FORGED.

Rather than jump to the conclusions as you seem more than willing to do, can you please humor me and provide a link to memos 2-7 so that I can read for myself myself the context of the "linked around" statement given the content of the supporting documents.

I'ld be happy to say the Brits were claiming the US was forging info if the content and context in the other memos supports it. But to date your ranting that Bush had intelligence FORGED, FORGED mind you rings quite hollow.

Dauphin's opinion that the data was selectively chosen is probably more on the money and much more likely.

Even Aggie makes the distinction that the data was selectively chosen for a given agenda vs. out an out FORGED as you claim.

Whats truly sad is how reading skills have become a preciously scarce commodity.

[Agathon]

Even Aggie makes the distinction that the data was selectively chosen for a given agenda vs. out an out FORGED as you claim.

Don't trust me Ogie. I'll stab you in the back!!!

No. I don't think that the intel was forged, although I'm open to the possibility. The memo doesn't say that though.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

It absolutely turned my stomach to use your statements to show rationality.

Gonna have to shower now.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I defy you to show where in the memo it was STATED that the inteligence data was FORGED.

If you are suck a jackass that you're still trying to deny such a well proven fact then you simply are a hack who isn't worth wasting time on. This has been showen time and again including in a memo in this very thread. Why not try your hand at halocaust denial ot claiming the sun won't rise tomorow because that would be easier then denying Bush lied and fixed his "proof" to justify his illegal war. That's simply the facts and one day you will accept them if you stop being such a hack.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I take that as a "I can't show you the proof because I don't have any". Fair enough.

[Dinner]

In other good new the number of google hits for the "Downing Street Memo" keeps on growing and growing. Soon even the lazy lap dogs of the US press will be forced to pick this up. Not that they'll do much with it since that would mean exposing illegal and unethical behavior by a sitting President and they're far to worried about him using his anti-trust powers against their corporate empires.

Number of Google hits for “Downing Street Memo”, 6/5/05: 267,000
Number of Google hits for “Downing Street Memo”, 6/9/05: 575,000
Number of Google hits for “Downing Street Memo”, 6/14/05: 874,000

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=236&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I take that as a "I can't show you the proof because I don't have any". Fair enough.

There was the 7 memos you jack ass. There was the word for word which you continue to make fantasy claims about. You and I both know that fixing evidience means fabricating or at least selectively choosing & ignoring evidence to justify a policy. The numerous CIA leaks show that the administration was out right fabricating its case about WMD since the CIA said there was little or no WMD in Iraq. Not that the Bush Administration stopped making the claims just because every intellence source said they were full of ****e. then we have the fact that not one creditable intelligence source ever claimed Saddam was helping Al Qaeda but still we had Rumsfield telling bold faced lies that Saddam was Osama's best friend.

It was a fabricated lie the day they said it and it is a fabricated lie today. Everyone with integrity knows this to be true and only a hack like you would continue to deny the truth.

[Drake Tungsten]

If you want a war against all Islamic fundamentalists, cool, but at least admit that's how you define it rather than expand the definition of al Qaeda to Orwellian proportions (are they Eurasia or Eastasia?)

I'd prefer to define it as a war against Islamism as well, but that's not a term that has come into common use. One side calls it a war on "terror", the other side calls it a war on "Al Qaeda". I'd personally rather dump both terms, as they're both misleading, but I don't really have enough pull to frame the debate.

I did make a mistake in attributing the '93 WTC attack to Al Qaeda and I corrected it in a later post. It was an error on my part, not some attempt to expand Al Qaeda into some all-encompassing bogeyman.

Of course, you could argue that attributing nearly any attack to Al Qaeda is misleading, given the extremely nebulous nature of that organization. Such is the problem with using commonly accepted, but ultimately inaccurate terms.

Not much of a war, was it?

I prefer to say that it was an appropriate amount of effort given the importance of the conflict to America.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Oerdin

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/06/13/BL2005061300982_pf.html

In other news a second British memo has been uncovered which basically confirms what the other Downing Street Memo said. Bush had evidence forged to justify his rush to war, that the decision to go to war was made months if not years ahead of time, and that the administration knew there was little to no WMDs in Iraq.

Damn

The truth is plain for everyone to see.

What else do people need before they face up to the truth?