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

[GePap]

Close to three years? You mean Over two...

But yeah, Iraq having had 300,000 men at arms in 2002, you would think it would not be impossible to get 100,000 back in arms in two years.

[Ted Striker]

Anybody have occupation numbers for post war Germany and Italy?

[Ted Striker]

I can't find them anywhere. But I ran across this thing. VERY INTERESTING! It's a manual for occupation soldiers in Germany.

The German people may appear to be friendly and docile as you move into Germany. Are they? We've occupied Aachen for several months. Twice, at night, Germans have strung wires across the main road through Aachen to tear the head off some jeep driver. Two months after we moved into one little German village and posted proclamations directing Germans to turn in all arms, we made a house to house search and found more than 20 assorted firearms.

Would you be friendly to a foreign army that occupied your home town and gave you orders ? If some friend of yours back home shot one of those men, wouldn't he be a hero to you and the whole community?

[Ted Striker]

.

[Ted Striker]

Of course, in the situation in Germany, the population was extremley docile and cooperated with their occupiers. It's a safe guess to say that the country was also occupied by millions of soldiers. (Had to be at least a million).

However, in reading that manual, you get the impression that every soldier was to expect the worst. Not the vision that Rumsfeld had, in which he expected crowds to be handing out flowers. Eisenhower had been planning for gruelling geurilla warfare as far ahead as 1944.

So, in the German case we have:

1) An overwhelming occupying force
2) Cooperative population
3) A plan, that assumed the worst

In Iraq we have:

1) Wayyyy undermanned occupying force
2) A large and well backed segment of the population actively resisting
3) Outside support and influence
4) A plan (or lack thereof) that was called incompetent by several senators (including several GOP senators)


The insurgency could have been contained if overwheming force had been applied to it from the start, and the streets had been contained, and if the security forces had not been disbanded.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
they are already sending back amputees - probably the first war ever where that has happened

Maybe Charles Grainer and Lyndie England will get a second tour

Lord Nelson?

[Alexander's Horse]

yeah it goes back to 18th century

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

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.

regardless of the truth or lack thereof in the above statement, I ask again where in the Downing Street docs is there proof of FORGING?

Sorry if I'm being dense but you are applying other pieces of evidence/data to read into the DSM's something that wasn't stated.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Ah, but that's not what Bush said originally. In his March 18, 2003 letter to Congress authorizing war in Iraq, Bush said:

"(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.."

So he's claiming we must attack Iraq because they planned, authorized, committed or aided the attacks. None of which are true, we now know.

No he is not.

The charge was Iraq under Sadaam was a terrorist supporter. A charge with merit btw, considering their payola for suicide bomber policy.

The qualifier "including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." is not necessarily an accusation that Iraq was complicit in 9/11. Post 9/11 Bush was adamant that all forms of terrorism needed to be eliminated. This verbage is a tie or reminder of that pledge.

[Mr. Harley]

Some men with some pretty terrible injuries are not only being sent back, but they are being put under terrible pressure to return. The BBC did an excellent report on that last year, but I'm not in the mood to fight with their site to find the report - it was nauseating.

In memory to all amputees who have served their countries (I prefer the John McDermott version, but this one suffices). Please listen to the song, whichever side of the argument you are on (and remember the state the US Veterans hospitals are in).

http://iwvpa.net/boglee/and_th.htm

[Ned]

Oerdin, the only thing new about this memo is the point that the Bush admin had given little thought about what happens after the military campaign. The memo is clear that the Brits believed that Saddam had WMD and even feared Saddam using them from day 1.

As to Bush's intentions about a war, he made it clear that there would be a war if Saddam didn't comply with the UN resolutions. That much was not news.

[child of Thor]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4101420.stm

My understanding of it was that the military option on Iraq had a window of opportunity(avoiding winter) - so plans were made far in advance to go to war by such+such a date. A big deployment like we saw in Iraq cant just be put to gether in a few weeks - more like months(maybe years?) of planning needed to go into it.

Its just to the public we do seem to have 'caught' the politicians telling blatant lies about all this

And why the hell were members of Bin Ladens family allowed to fly out of the US after the 911 attacks?

hmmm.......i dont suppose anyone actualy feels like a sucker?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


No he is not.

The charge was Iraq under Sadaam was a terrorist supporter. A charge with merit btw, considering their payola for suicide bomber policy.

The qualifier "including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." is not necessarily an accusation that Iraq was complicit in 9/11. Post 9/11 Bush was adamant that all forms of terrorism needed to be eliminated. This verbage is a tie or reminder of that pledge.

That's the lamest bit of weaseling I've seen in a long time. If Bush wasn't trying to say Iraq had some hand in 9/11, why mention it at all? He could have stopped at the "terrorist organizations" line and the same point would be made. It's not as if congress would see the authorization any different.

No, by adding the bit about 9/11, he is deliberately linking Iraq to 9/11. This was part and parcel of the administration's strategy to make links, spearheaded by Cheney on the Sunday morning news (including his repeating the claim about a meeting between Al Queda and Iraq officials in Prague even after that incident had been proven false).

[Alexander's Horse]

2 officers fragged

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov




That's the lamest bit of weaseling I've seen in a long time. If Bush wasn't trying to say Iraq had some hand in 9/11, why mention it at all? He could have stopped at the "terrorist organizations" line and the same point would be made. It's not as if congress would see the authorization any different.

No, by adding the bit about 9/11, he is deliberately linking Iraq to 9/11. This was part and parcel of the administration's strategy to make links, spearheaded by Cheney on the Sunday morning news (including his repeating the claim about a meeting between Al Queda and Iraq officials in Prague even after that incident had been proven false).

Sure it was weasle words doesn't mean that he stated Iraq was complicit in 9/11.

Sure he probably allowed the greater public to foster misconceptions about Iraq's involvedment or lack thereof in 9/11 but that is a far cry from stating it definitively.

Lastly sure he did esure that some link was made in order to pressure the Senate to back the resolution for fear of being the lone Senator who wouldn't fight terrorism. BUT that is still far different then saying Iraq played a role in 9/11.

So your example of Bush stating Iraq had a role in 9/11 still falls short.

By the by weasel words are part and parcel for any contract or legalese. If not then there would be no need for legal weasel lawyer types. Sorry thems parts of doin business whether in private business or government.