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

[Dinner]

LA Times: New Memos Detail Early Plans for Invading Iraq (Newly-released documents; not DSM)

LONDON — In March 2002, the Bush administration had just begun to publicly raise the possibility of confronting Iraq. But behind the scenes, officials already were deeply engaged in seeking ways to justify an invasion, newly revealed British memos indicate.

Foreshadowing developments in the year before the war started, British officials emphasized the importance of U.N. diplomacy, which they said might force Saddam Hussein into a misstep. They also suggested that confronting the Iraqi leader be cast as an effort to prevent him from using weapons of mass destruction or giving them to terrorists.

The documents help flesh out the background to the formerly top-secret "Downing Street memo" published in the Sunday Times of London last month, which said that top British officials were told eight months before the war began that military action was "seen as inevitable." President Bush and his main ally in the war, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, have long maintained that they had not made up their minds to go to war at that stage.

"Nothing could be farther from the truth," Bush said last week, responding to a question about the July 23, 2002, memo. "Both of us didn't want to use our military. Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."

More...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-britmemos15jun15,0,3650829.story?page=1&coll=la-home-headlines

[Ramo]

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.

You want a war against Islamism? What the hell does that mean? You realize that Islamists aren't necessarily terrorists, right? You realize that the Iraqi national gov't and half of the provincial gov't's are dominated by Islamists, right?

[chequita guevara]

Sure, blame AP. God damn ****wads.

[Dauphin]

I didn't do my job because no-one told me what to write.

[Ramo]

See Jon Stewart's comparison of American and British press...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ramo

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.

You want a war against Islamism? What the hell does that mean? You realize that Islamists aren't necessarily terrorists, right? You realize that the Iraqi national gov't and half of the provincial gov't's are dominated by Islamists, right?

It strikes me as odd that many of the people who want a war against Islamism in general are also those who complain that the US discriminates against Christians.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ramo
See Jon Stewart's comparison of American and British press...

I had a look for the May 4th episode of the Daily Show, but couldn't get very far as all the links I found are dead.

Got any links that work?

[Ted Striker]

Oerdin: Looks like it's picking up steam. Let's see if it gets any traction.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin


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.

I'm still awaiting proof or links to the other memos that show FORGED (aka falsified and made out of whole cloth) data. Selective choosing of data I've already indicated existed. Forged is another matter and a charge you have stated as fact when in fact it is nowhere to be seen in the actual Downing Street memo (do the other memos shed any light on the subject?).

But perhaps its better to be completely over the top making overreaching baseless claims.

I expect a normal reasoned response from you along lines of you a$$hole jackass hack or something to that effect, which do so well at supporting your arguement.

[Dinner]

Bush publically claimed there were vast quantities of WMD in Iraq, that Saddam was behind 9/11, and that Saddam would give WMD's to Al Qaeda. All three of those claims were the exact opposite of the British and American intell reports which were given to Bush. If that isn't making stuff up I don't know what is.

[Drake Tungsten]

"Most Americans already know what's in the Downing Street Memo. They knew it before the memo was even published. And they don't care."

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Bush publically claimed there were vast quantities of WMD in Iraq, that Saddam was behind 9/11, and that Saddam would give WMD's to Al Qaeda. All three of those claims were the exact opposite of the British and American intell reports which were given to Bush. If that isn't making stuff up I don't know what is.

Now that's true.

[Ming]

Hmmm... could you find a link to where Bush "publically" claimed that Saddam was behind 9/11... I don't remember that speech...

I do remember the massive amounts of WMD bit, and how they would end up in terrorists hands... but not the third...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
"Most Americans already know what's in the Downing Street Memo. They knew it before the memo was even published. And they don't care."

That's a reliable website for information?

[Alexander's Horse]

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2003/0918proof.htm

Ming's point I think