It’s a good thing that even though I’m not overly religious I still believe in karma and hell. I think President Bush and Prime Minister Blair will be quite toasty.
Bush told Blair we’re going to war, memo reveals
A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 – nearly two months before the invasion – reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme.
…
The memo seen by Prof Sands reveals:
· Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of “flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours”. Mr Bush added: “If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]“.
I think its interesting that its in the British press that this information keeps coming out, while our lapdog U.S. media is too busy getting bruises on its collective knees.
It is time for the entire Democratic party to get off its collective ass, endorse John Murtha’s plan for Iraq, and begin detailing to the public the criminal manipulation of power the White House has engaged in that has led to the deaths of over 2,200 Americans. I think its way past time for Dems to stop worrying about seeming “tough”. Especially when being “tough” is making our country less safe through the spread of Al Qaeda.
Retreat and surrender is just an excellent strategy, Oliver.
Oh if “retreat and surrender” had anything to do with what Murtha wants. In your dream world it does. Here’s a clue. The problems in Iraq are not, as the President keeps telling us, between “terrorist insurgents” and “Americans fighting for freedom”. Of all the chaos in Iraq, that is a miniscule part of it. The real question is how is the new Iraqi nation going to emerge as sovereign, united and peaceful. That is a political question that the US military can do very little about. And if terrorism is the proxy by which we define US interests, one can make the case that bolstering a pro-Iranian government with Badr Corp religious militia terrorizing erstwhile secular cities like Basra and rounding up innocent Sunnis the way Saddam did innocent Shi’ites, and with Moqtada Sadr as an integral element of this government, it is every bit as “pro-terrorist” as supporting a Sunni insurgency. If Iran continues to provoke the West on nuclear weapons, who do you think will run to Iran’s defense? Here’s a hint: it won’t be the Sunnis. But I guess it would be “retreat and defeat” to back away from arming a pro-Iranian Shi’ite fundamentalist regime.
What did any of that have to do with Representative Murtha’s position?
JD;
Although you would prefer to talk about the ‘coward’ Murtha, this thread
is about Executive Lies which put us in a war of choice. Get over.
Dugger,
I think we have to leave sometime. When we do leave, it will start a civil war. Unless we stay for decades, the Iraqi army will never have the capability to stop an armed resistance movement. If we set a deadline and get the hell outta dodge, sure the civil war will occur, but at least we won’t be losing troops and we can always claim that we gave them a chance. At the moment, it does kinda look like we went in their blind, deaf and dumb. I just feel bad that it’s the soldiers who have to pay for it.
Dugger;
Where have you been? We all need your salient counterpoints to keep
the discussion eathbound.
Dream on Oliver. How convenient we actually don’t see or get to read the memo but get some leftist yahoo’s ‘interpretation’ of it. And the ultimate source is the reliable and balanced Guardian. Why not see what NewsMax has to say or the Birch society?
And by all means get every stinking egg you got and lug them all down to Murtha-land and load his basket up. The Republicans are ripe to lose power and about the only way to head it off would be for Dems to go the Murtha/Sheehan/Dean route.
Elrod, Murtha does want to withdraw, precipitously – regardless of conditions on ground and consequences. That is certainly retreat and its mighty close to out and out surrender (vacating the battelfield and leaving it to the enemy).
Quickie I think you could be right about civil war but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do our damndest to leave the situation as clean and strong as possible – maybe, just maybe, we’re wrong and the Iraqi military will be strong enough to hold on. Pulling out ala Murtha in addition toa power vacuum would signal the militants that we won’t come back – may lead to genocide.
Dugger
“The meeting between Mr Bush and Mr Blair, attended by six close aides, came at a time of growing concern about the failure of any hard intelligence to back up claims that Saddam was producing weapons of mass destruction.
It took place a few days before the then US secretary Colin Powell made claims – since discredited – in a dramatic presentation at the UN about Iraq’s weapons programme.”
Therein may be found the smoking gun in the case for lies
Of course, it will need corroboration from people involved.
And still, the Plausible Denialists will be spinning their little media
webs of more lies and cover stories.
“The insurgents are reduced to carrying out suicide bomb attacks …”
First, let’s distinguish between the Baathist loyalists carrying out IED attacks and the alQaeda operatives who are carrying out the suicide bombings. Two different groups, two different tactics.
Second, let’s recognize that we haven’t “reduced” either of them to anything. These were their tactics from day one.
“The real question is how is the new Iraqi nation going to emerge as sovereign, united and peaceful. That is a political question that the US military can do very little about.”
The elections which (we hope) will lead to a united and peaceful Iraq could not have been held without the US military invasion and occupation of Iraq. The insurgents are reduced to carrying out suicide bomb attacks because the US military prevents them from controlling areas of the country in which they could form a stand-up military force.
If the question is how the Iraqi nation will emerge from this united and peaceful, the answer has to involve both politics and an American military presence. Murtha’s proposal would have left a power vacuum that would have been filled by Al Qaida and ethnic militias.
Of course I could be wrong. Despite appearances Iraq just may be a place where peace is trying to break out between factions that have been warring for centuries.
It doesn’t matter when or how we pull out of Iraq, there is going to be a civil war. The Kurds are talking about taking full autonomy, and loyalty to Kurdistan above Iraq. The Shi’ites are talking about taking the last 20 years out on the Sunnis. And the Sunnis are used to being the big dogs.
They’re going to fight. There is *nothing* we can do about it. The only thing us sticking around does is get a whole bunch of people from other countries moving into Iraq to stir the pot.
Get over it.
Oh, and one more thing. We would *love* for them to put together a stand-up force. Love it. We’re not worried about any stand-up force in the world (well, maybe China’s). Thats easy. The problem is, those areas we clean and leave, they’re not “stand up force” areas, they’re just areas that can be used to train insurgents to go suicide bomb us elsewhere. And they still just melt away when we come to smash them.
What if we come at this from another angle?
So far, we’re into this endeavor for 2,200+ soldiers killed, 10,000+ wounded, and $400 billion.
I’ll spot you “Saddam was a bad man and it’s a good thing he’s been deposed.”
Now what else can we expect to accomplish before we stop pounding lives and money down the rathole?
According to the UN resolutions, the entire burden of proof that Iraq was compliant was on Iraq. Period. THEY had to prove they were not developing WMDs, no one had to prove they were. They repeatedly stalled, evaded, stonewalled, and threatened while bribing officials hand over fist with the Oil For Food/Quid Pro Crude scam.
I’ve made the analogy before: after the first Gulf War, Saddam was like a parolee who had to submit to regular drug tests and random searches. His refusal to cooperate voided the terms that ended the first Gulf war, just like a parolee who refuses a drug test (regardless of the eventual results) can get tossed back in the clink.
Saddam was trying a sophisticated double-bluff: to keep Iran and his own oppressed minorities convinced he still had WMD capabilities to preserve his own reign, while giving his bribed allies (France, Germany, Russia) enough money and plausible deniability to forestall any UN action.
But he didn’t remember the most important thing: don’t try to bluff a Texan.
Oh, and Oliver, I’m still waiting for you to either back up or retract your accusation that I fabricate material and ignore facts when I post. At what point can I safely presume that you’re not going to do either, and were talking through your hat when you made that accusation?
J.
“And by all means get every stinking egg you got and lug them all down to Murtha-land and load his basket up. The Republicans are ripe to lose power and about the only way to head it off would be for Dems to go the Murtha/Sheehan/Dean route.”
Yeah Dugger and the Republicans are taking the Delay/Abramoff/Neh/Libby route. One is about a question of truthfulness in taking this country to war that has caused the deaths of over 2300 American soldiers, and countless civilians, all based on what is now known to be “intelligence” that was selectively used to justify it in the first place and is now know to be false. The other is about a party that has been corrupted by power and money so much that they fail to see the what the problem is and somehow think they will hang on to their jobs by making superficial “changes”.
LB,
We do have to leave, it can’t be decades, and it may ultimately bring about Quickie’s civil war, but no matter what, our moral obligation at this point is to leave as strong an Iraqi armed force as we reasonably can – one that will, for some time at least, forestall the civil war. And who knows, maybe the good guys, the democrats, will hang on and Iraq will be the vanguard of a modern Arab middle eastern state. Maybe (hell, probably not).
Quaker,
The cost, in isolation, is high -as you starkly put it. But when compared to other wars, not so high. And if it brings about the end, or is the beginning of the end, of the last really major source of international conflict on the globe – maybe it is very noble and worth the price. Still not sure I would have done it – because the raw material for a successful democracy is not there. But I may be wrong.
BW,
Both parties took us to war. Both parties believed in WMDs which was but one of several cited reasons for war. Corruption exists on both sides of the fence. Taking money from Abramoff directly or by proxy via the tribes is not per se corruption. There must be a quid pro quo. Using intelligence selectively is smart not ignorant, but ignoring intelligence is a different critter. Not a single lie has been documented. Why not argue the war on its merits or lack of same versus what your possibly fevered imagination conjures up as motives on the part of those who voted for war.
Dugger
It can’t be decades? Why not? We have seen no indication that we won’t be there at least 10 years under the Bush system. Furthermore, we see no basis for Western style democracy in Iraq. What we see are the foundations of an Islamic republic.
Liar, Dugger, both parties did not bring us to war. George W Bush brought us to war. George W. Bush lied all along the way, saying war was not inevitable, when all along he had already committed to war. Members of both sides believed there might be WMDs, but it was Bush that kept promoting bogus, questionable intelligence to make the American public believe that Iraq was a real immediate threat.
Liar Dugger, Democrats did not get money directly or indirectly from Abramoff. They got money from Indian tribes that had a history of donating to democrats long before Abramoff. Abramoff directed some money that might have gone to Democrats to Republicans, and that isn’t even the basis of the scandal. He gave lots of illegal donations to happy Republicans, often in exchange for votes on legislation.
Why is comparison to other wars a valid measure?
After three years of looking for a realistic explanation of why we invaded Iraq, I’m willing to surrender to Mr. Bush’s rationalization: We’re there. The lives and money lost to this point are simply lost.
Now the question is, “What do we have to accomplish before we can leave?”
Mr. Murtha’s assertion is that there’s nothing more that can be accomplished by the military. If he’s wrong, what else is there?
“Iraq will be the vanguard of a modern Arab middle eastern state. Maybe (hell, probably not).”
I think after the Palestinian elections and continuing provocations from Iran you can take the maybe right out of it. The invasion of Iraq didn’t intimidate anyone, indeed, it strengthened the support of hardliners in the region who have been able to totally isolate their opposition as American puppets. Bush’s entire foreign policy approach rested on the simplistic, child-like assertion that democracies always and inevitably lead to freedom and peace. His handling of the region has proven his own thesis deadly wrong. It takes a lot more than military muscle and bluster to create a stable democracy. It takes a lot more than a series of elections held on a totally arbitraty schedule. This administration has proven itself completely unable to build and promote the kind of institutions and reforms that make for stable democracies and it just installed a theocracy in Iraq. Brilliant. Let’s stay the course.
How many times we gotta go through this?
Abramoff didn’t give money to the Indian tribes to pass on to the Dems. He took money from the Indian tribes.
The Washington Post has reported–without providing much in the way of substantiation–the Abramoff gave “request lists” to the tribes to tell them where to spend their money. That’s not Abramoff giving to the Dems by proxy. That would be the tribes giving their own money to Dems with Abramoff’s OK.
However, as you correctly point out, legal campaign contributions are not the issue. The scandal is about things like Mr. Abramoff providing $50,000 in payments to the wife of Tony Rudy, Tom DeLay’s second-in-command. It’s about Mr. Abramoff demanding fat checks from clients to the National Center for Public Policy Research which turns around and funds lavish golf trips to Scotland for GOP honchos.
But really, the question remains: Who will tell the (draft age) children?
“our moral obligation at this point is to leave as strong an Iraqi armed force as we reasonably can -”
Dugger; Ah, there’s the rub…
What yardstick of measurement should be used to determine,
‘reasonably can’? It’s all so subjective isn’t it? It’s a bit like saying
you are opposed to the suffering of children. Which form of suffering,
and what constitutes the degree?
Mitterpidge
Says I lie when I say both parties took us to war. But CNN says the ‘Iraq war resolution’ vote was 77 to 23 for war. Among Democrats voting to authorize war: John Edwards, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Tom Harkin.
Mitterpidge, again calling me a liar, also says Dems did not get money indirectly from Abramoff. But WaPo, that famous liberal newspaper and hater of Republicans, says:
“But Abramoff didn’t work just with Republicans. He oversaw a team of two dozen lobbyists at the law firm Greenberg Traurig that included many Democrats. Moreover, the campaign contributions that Abramoff directed from the tribes went to Democratic as well as Republican legislators.”
Further, the hot headed Mitterpidge says ” He gave lots of illegal donations to happy Republicans, often in exchange for votes on legislation.”
Perhaps you can cite one example where this has been found to be true by legal authorities. Daily Kos and Indymedia don’t count. One source. Ought to be easy. Surely you wouldn’t have engaged in all of that hot headed language without facts to back it up. Lets have it.
Quaker,
We’ll go through it until you begin seeing the forest and not the roots of little trees. See the Wapo quote above. Abramoff gives them a list of how to donate, they then donate per the list. I accept there is no scandal on either side unless some quid pro quo is established, but spare me the arguments re Democrats not being mixed up with Abe when they received funds per his direction.
Dugger
Semant,
Cannot, of course, say when ready is ready. Truth is I have no good feeling about the situation. We will not wipe out centuries of cultural and religious strife WITHIN Iraq in a few years. I also doubt the Iraqi armed forces will hold toegther over the years after we leave, once that centuries-old religious/cultural strife reasserts itself. At some point our military will say they are combat ready. When they do, we go and hope they are truly combat ready (mentally and physically). The best we can do is prepare them up to a point and hope they will hold on. This is the best argument against this war – period: The basic instability of the societal structure.
Dugger
Dugger;
Let me test you out a little more on this.
If we manage to leave an adequately armed and trained Iraqi force
and civil war erupts nevertheless with Iran emerging as the sole
arbiter of Iraq’s future, will the death and dismemberment of our
brightest and best have been in vain?
Nonsense.
It seems to be pretty well established that there was a list.
Who decided what names were on the list? The WaPo seems to have concluded that Abramoff chose the names. I’ve seen no evidence to indicate that.
Now that Mr. Abramoff is cooperating with prosecutors, we have a pretty good chance of finding out. When Abramoff says he was sending money to the Dems, then we’ll have something to talk about. Until then, there are many conclusions and lots of jumping.
“This is the best argument against this war – period: The basic instability of the societal structure.”
And no one at all was arguing this before the invasion.
Somewhat OT, but am interested in feedback on whether these people
could be called ‘war criminals’ guilty of ‘war profiteering’.
Any thoughts?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11148258/
Dugger;
Yes. It is like “Charge of the Light Brigade” ‘….ours is not to question
why, ours is but to do or die.’
It is the loss of the noble that pains me most. Meanwhile, the bastards
live to a ripe old age.
Please allow me to help.
If you refer to Mr. Abramoff’s plea agreement, you’ll see that he provided cash and other things of value (including meals, tickets, trips, etc.) to “Representative #1,” in exchange for that representative using his official position to introduce and support legislation to end a federal gaming ban. The representative also promised to oppose legislation that would have raised postal rates and that would have prohibited certain forms of Internet gambling.
You can read it for yourself.
Semant,
You won’t like this. Yes and no. Yes: I don’t think Iran will ever control Iraq’s future but I do think another brutal Saddam-esque dictator is possible in Iraq. Therefore, our effort would have yielded nothing major at all and would not have been worth the sacrifice. No: Soldiers themselves don’t go to war and ’sacrifice’ based on the probablilty of success (don’t get me wrong – NONE want to die) or anticipated return dividend. There is a sense of moral duty and obligation to the job of being a soldier and to his/her fellow soldiers and those that went before. That sense of duty has been around a long time – Gilbert and Sullivan satirized it well, but its a real and (I think) good thing – in a ‘democracy’.
Dugger
Back For The Moment
It’s been a while ~ here’s a couple of things that caught my eye. Seems ole John Kerry might have aggravated his Dem colleagues for pushing for a filibuster of the Alito vote. Tom at BTD suggests that we look
Blah Blah Blah, Dugger, the facts remain simply this: George Bush and only George Bush made the poor decision to go to war. He was not directed to by congress, he did not ask congress for a war resolution, but for authority to go to war, lying the whole time saying he wanted to force Hussein into things that Hussein capitulated to prior to invasion. Unfortunately, congress did not take into account Bush’s incompetence, his extremely poor judgement, and his extremely poor grasp of intelligence and diplomacy.
Point two, you keep acting as if the Indian tribes Abramoff represented and fleeced were somehow evil or at fault or guilty of something. They were victims. We are talking about illegal actions between Abramoff and the republicans he bribed. Not who got donations, not some kind of weird association of A stole from T to bribe R, T gave to D, therefore D = R.
You keep repeating these dishonest and misleading claims.
‘pidge
Dugger consistently distrusts any bureaucracy. There is more than
just a little justification for that feeling.
That’s Duggers job: to repeat dishonest and misleading claims
“Democrats and republicans are equally mixed up with Abramoff”
“Democrats in congress are just as responsible as Bush for the mess in Iraq.”
His purpose in life is to make us waste a lot of time refuting his lies. Then he just waits a few days and repeats the exact same lies all over again. We refute them again… he tells them again… We refute them again… he tells them again… And so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
He’s really quite good a yanking our chains. I gotta hand it to you, Dugger. As contemptible liars go, you’re one of the best.
CNN says the Iraq war resolution vote was 77 to 23 for war. Among Democrats voting to authorize war: John Edwards, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Tom Harkin.
Harry Truman’s motto: the buck stops here
George Bush’ motto: go buck yourself!
mitter,
The Indian tribes were looking for things like gambling concessions are were using their money like any other lobbyist – to gain influence. They worked with Abramoff. The distinction made by Dean is meaningless. This SO remiscent of the Plame scandal. Democrats aren’t concerned about corruption. They are only concerned abouty any angle that affects Republicans. Same with security leaks under Plame. If Abramoff is the corrupting immoral spawn of Satan – then both sides are corrupted. If he just carries typhoid – Dean has a point.
And any way you cut it, There was a war vote and there was bi-partisan support for it. Remember the great movie Ox Bow Incident . ALl of those cowboys sitting around on their horses saying ‘do it’ and providing the rope were just as guilty as the old Colonel.
I’m out of time.
Dugger
“Both parties took us to war.”
Dugger, there is no other way to put it but that’s just plain bullshit and you know it. Your CIC did along with his supporting staff of Rumsfield, Cheney, etc. The republicans with some success have portrayed this as a bipartisan action to take the heat off their asses for what is now know as a totally unneccessary action, period. But the ultimate decision to go to war was his and his alone. He could have avoided this mess by giving the inspectors more time and avoided the loss of life and the resulting mess that has occurred.
Furthermore, I dont and really dont give a flip who supports the Iraq war, its still wrong. Do you ever stop to think that maybe if we weren’t so mired up in Iraq, our military could have put more people and resources to where it belongs, Osama Ben Laden? Thats the main problem and the reason I opposed this action from the start, not because I dislike GWB or the republicans.
To get back to the subject for a change, this is about whether Bush intended to attack Iraq all along and was not being truthful when he said he would go to war as a “last resort”. If what we are hearing from the conversations between Bush and Blair leading up to the invasion, that was not the case. At a time when we were supposed to be trying to get the ones who were behind the 9-11 attacks, he was already planning to attack Iraq, who had nothing to do with it.
But the ultimate decision to go to war was his and his alone.
So why was there a war vote? Perhaps you meant (but did not say) that hte timing of the action was Bush’s. Bush could not have gone to war without Congressional approval. Check the vote total. It was factually bi-partisan.
And we are hearing nothing from Bush/Blair. We are hearing thirdhand hearsay from the Guardian – a notorious Bush-hating left wing paper. I probably could dig out a newspaper saying Clinton was smuggling drugs in Mena Arkansas. Or one about Pres Dewey (remember him – after all, it was in the papers).
Dugger
Democrats aren t concerned about corruption. They are only concerned abouty any angle that affects Republicans.
Dugger;
I am a democrat concerned about corruption.
Dugger
Do you listen to your own stupidity?
You seem to say that Abramoff and the republicans dirty, illegal activities are inconsequential because Democrats got legal, clean donations from the same Indian tribes Abramoff fleeced.
Then you excuse the Bush Administration for ruining the career and putting in danger a covert CIA operative, exposing other CIA operatives, and a whole slew of contacts, simply for crass political payback by saying it is simply manufactured Democratic political outrage. Get real.
Then you want to say the Democrats were egging George Bush into war. Historical revisionism aside, that is just plain stupid. It was GW Bush who decided invasion was a good idea, it was GW Bush that said there were WMDs, it was GW Bush that fucked up the diplomacy, it was GW Bush that fucked up the occupation. It was GW Bush that went before congress and said Iraq was an immediate and dangerous threat. It was GW Bush that used the bogus, manufactured evidence to convince congress. It was GW Bush that set the political climate around that vote. Notice Bush asked for a resolution granting him the right to make a decision for invasion, not for a direct declaration of War.
Mitterpidge,
You screwed up everyhting.
What illegal activities associated with Abramoff are you talking about? Why don’t you specify an illegal activity?
Sort it out:
Looking at Congressional and Excutive branch members of either party, there have been NO LEGAL findings of guilt re Abe. The fact that Abramoff may have fleeced tribes does not mitigate any possible illegal actions (if same were to be found) regarding Abramoff-directed donations (per WaPo) or Abramoff direct donations.
A donation by Abramoff or any lobbyist, direct or by proxy, is not illegal or immoral – pe se.
There has been absolutely no finding of he Bush administration ruining the career of a CIA agent. None.
The decision to go to war was bi-partisan. You can’t rewrite history. The timing of the execution of that decision was the Executive Branch’s. Ask an adult about it.
I’m not impresed by childish F bombs. Its usually an attempt to cover up for a lack of knowledge and judgment – which you had already amply demonstrated.
Dugger
…and British Channel 4. They also claim to have seen the memo in question.
Of course, one may question the authenticity and accuracy of the memo. However, my point is a very narrow one: the Guardian isn’t alone on this.
Mr. Abramoff has accepted a plea agreement in which he admits to illegal acts involving at least one member of Congress and aides to another.
If you mean that the people Mr. Abramoff accuses have not been found guilty, you are correct.
So far.
Quaker, Think a bit. It just doesn’t ring true. Even if you believe Bush is some kind of, at once, stupid and very clever bogeyman, would he say openly to Blair and a chronicler that he intends to create a false incident as a pretext to start a war?
You really believe that?
Furthermore, I’d invite you to Google the good perfessor. He’s ben out there pursuing charges against Blair, Howard and Bush on the basis of the illegality of the Iraq war. He is hardly anything other than a highly, highly biased observer.
Dugger
Let me repeat this:
I’ll not set forth any other opinions on the matter unless and until the alleged memo can be seen and verified.
I will express no opinion as to whether Mr. Bush is capable of such. However, even if one assumes that he is, he would not be the first American president to do so.
Quaker,
And says it openly to a foreign head of state and with somebody taking notes?
Come now. Aren’t we just the wee bit skeptical of all of this?
Dugger (you can tell me, I’ll keep it to myself)
Several instances of such have made it into the history books somehow. There musta been witnesses.
thus you aren’t sceptical at all?
Dugger
Why are you asking me to repeat myself?