P2P-Zone  

Go Back   P2P-Zone > Political Asylum
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-05-05, 09:53 PM   #1
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default the Downing St. memos

the Downing St. memo just confirms what most of us already knew, even though some of us will never admit it:

Quote:
Memo: Bush manipulated Iraq intel

May 9, 2005
WASHINGTON - A highly classified British memo, leaked in the midst of Britain's just-concluded election campaign, indicates that President George W. Bush decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by summer 2002 and was determined to ensure that U.S. intelligence data supported his policy.
.

so any way you look at it the case for invading Iiraq was rigged.

Quote:
The memo said, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
if the facts and intelligence were being fixed around policy, then the Prez took the country to war with false and/or misleading info - and he knew it. isn't that an impeachable offense?

Quote:
the newly disclosed memo, which was first reported by the Sunday Times of London, hasn't been disavowed by the British government. The British Embassy in Washington did not respond to requests for comment.

A former senior U.S. official called it "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during the senior British intelligence officer's visit to Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity

A White House official said the administration wouldn't comment on leaked British docments.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...tics-headlines
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-05, 04:09 AM   #2
floydian slip
===\/------/\===
 
floydian slip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,704
Default

Attached Images
 
floydian slip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-05, 05:39 AM   #3
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
snore

Y A W N....




Saddam refused to comply with UN mandates or his surrender terms from 1991.
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-05, 06:45 AM   #4
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by albed
Saddam refused to comply with UN mandates or his surrender terms from 1991.
this is what the President was selling:

~ Aluminum artillery tubes misdiagnosed as nuclear related;
~ Forgeries alleging Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa;
~ Tall tales from a drunken defector about mobile biological weapons laboratories;
~ Bogus warnings that Iraqi forces could fire WMD-tipped missiles within 45 minutes of an order to do so;
~ Dodgy dossiers fabricated in London; and
~ A U.S. National Intelligence Estimate thrown in for good measure.

all of it bogus and he knew it. not as juicy as a blow job in the oval office but twice as illegal and 10 times more immoral.

run along now -- the flock is calling you.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-05, 08:18 PM   #5
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by theknife
if the facts and intelligence were being fixed around policy, then the Prez took the country to war with false and/or misleading info - and he knew it. isn't that an impeachable offense?
Presidents get impeached for breaking the law. If he had perjured himself before a grand jury that would be one thing, but where does the law state that it's illegal to manipulate public opinion?

You make it sound like lying politicians are a new trend that needs to be stopped before it beocmes too prevalent. You make it sound like perjury in federal court, leaking classified documents, and trashing people's reputations is somehow morally superior to making war on false pretenses. Beleive me, if Bush was using policy to guide his military decisions he learned that trick from Clinton whose actions in Somalia, the Balkans, Sudan, and Iraq sacrificed thousands of people for the sake of boosting his public approval rating.

The president shouldn't have to lie to people to get them to do the right thing. The legitimate reasons for the war in Iraq are far better than the ones these memos allude to.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-05, 05:12 AM   #6
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazer
Presidents get impeached for breaking the law. If he had perjured himself before a grand jury that would be one thing, but where does the law state that it's illegal to manipulate public opinion?

You make it sound like lying politicians are a new trend that needs to be stopped before it beocmes too prevalent. You make it sound like perjury in federal court, leaking classified documents, and trashing people's reputations is somehow morally superior to making war on false pretenses. Beleive me, if Bush was using policy to guide his military decisions he learned that trick from Clinton whose actions in Somalia, the Balkans, Sudan, and Iraq sacrificed thousands of people for the sake of boosting his public approval rating.

The president shouldn't have to lie to people to get them to do the right thing. The legitimate reasons for the war in Iraq are far better than the ones these memos allude to.
in this particular context, comparisons to Clinton are irrelevant. but if the president lied to take the country to war, then he is as impeachable as clinton was:

-Providing misinformation to the United Nations Security Council, Congress, and the American people overstating the offensive capabilities of Iraq, including weapons of mass destruction, as justification for military action against Iraq.
-Repeatedly manipulating the sentiments of the American people by erroneously linking Iraq with the terrorist attacks of September 11th by Al-Qaeda.
-Repeatedly claiming that satellite photos of sites in Iraq depicted factories for weapons of mass destruction in contradiction with the results of ground inspections by United Nations teams.
-Providing the International Atomic Energy Commission with forged documents describing the sale of uranium to Iraq by Niger, and referring to that sale in the State of the Union Address after being told by the CIA that the documents were forged.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-05, 06:15 AM   #7
malvachat
My eyes are now open.
 
malvachat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oxford uk
Posts: 1,409
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by albed
Y A W N....




Saddam refused to comply with UN mandates or his surrender terms from 1991.
You really must try to get more sleep Albed.
I think it's beginning to effect your judgement.
You seem to be getting more and more confused.
Breaking UN mandates is not a reason for war.
If that was the case we would have invaded Israel years ago.
Now be a good boy,stop making a noise and go to sleep now.

__________________
Beer is for life not just Christmas
malvachat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-05, 01:54 PM   #8
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
Default

I guess following me around and trolling is better than spreading terrorist propaganda.


You must really miss masturbating though.


Try learning instead. Start with the Korean War.
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-05, 04:35 PM   #9
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/
Attached Images
 
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-05, 05:54 PM   #10
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

"Take Action"

Sure, just let me put some finishing touches on my time machine and we'll go back and stop the war from happening. But if anyone has any reasonable suggestions for "action" I'm willing to hear them. Other than signing petitions and complaining loudly, what are we hoping to accomplish here?
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-05, 06:18 PM   #11
floydian slip
===\/------/\===
 
floydian slip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,704
Default

The P+++++T ACT has made many of my suggestions questionable/illegal.

Our current two party system needs to be purged of everyone somehow(legally). We need to convince the rest of the Ameicans about this. It starts at home. I consider this place my home on the internet.


Quote:
what are we hoping to accomplish here?
Informing. Venting. Letting our opinions out for all the world to see.


Can I have a ride on your time machine?
floydian slip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-05, 08:19 PM   #12
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazer
"Take Action"

Sure, just let me put some finishing touches on my time machine and we'll go back and stop the war from happening. But if anyone has any reasonable suggestions for "action" I'm willing to hear them. Other than signing petitions and complaining loudly, what are we hoping to accomplish here?

how about some accountability?

if the Downing St. memo is accurate (and the British government says it is), then we have a president who took us to war under false pretenses with fake documents and bogus evidence, misused the intelligence, repeatedly lied about his intentions, grossly underestimated the cost, miscalculated the opposition, and completely failed to plan for the aftermath of the invasion - all of this at a cost of thousands of US casualties and billions of dollars.

should there be no accountability for the gross incompetence (at least), if not dishonesty, of your leaders? how many US soldiers have to get killed for this lie (about 1600 so far - that's one thousand and six hundred Americans, kids most of them) before otherwise decent people like yourself say "enough"? the cost is going to top $500 billion by 2010 (that's half a trillion dollars) - money incompetently committed under false pretenses....do you really think no one should ask how "how the f@$k did we did get here?"

specifically, the entire iraq fiasco should be publicly dissected and investigated with a fine-tooth comb, if for no other reason than to ensure that it never happens again like this. and if there are impeachable offenses here, then so be it.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-05, 11:41 PM   #13
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

Well alright, site the law he broke and I'll get on the impeach Bush campaign with you. But you have to convince me that Bush had the means, the motive, and the opportunity to do such a thing. You probably already have answers for what he did and how he did it, but can you answer why? Bush didn't need to lie to get us into this war, so why would he want to?

All joking aside, there would be a solid case against the president if there were more evidence than one suspiciously leaked memo from a foreign intelligence agency. Given this administration's mountains of deniability I doubt you'll get any resolution that you'll be satisfied enough to call 'accountability.' Sorry to disappoint you.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-05, 03:08 AM   #14
malvachat
My eyes are now open.
 
malvachat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oxford uk
Posts: 1,409
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by albed
I guess following me around and trolling is better than spreading terrorist propaganda.


You must really miss masturbating though.


Try learning instead. Start with the Korean War.
Come on now,you don't think I'm following you,do you?
Don't be frightend now,nasty man won't hurt you.

"miss masturbating"
Where is she?
Is she a troller too?

"Start with the Korean War"
I'll have a read up,I was too young at that time.
Did you win that one all on your own?
__________________
Beer is for life not just Christmas
malvachat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-05, 05:03 AM   #15
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

How we got f#$cked by our leaders, from today's NYT:

Quote:
Is there any point, now that November's election is behind us, in revisiting the history of the Iraq war? Yes: any path out of the quagmire will be blocked by people who call their opponents weak on national security, and portray themselves as tough guys who will keep America safe. So it's important to understand how the tough guys made America weak.

There has been notably little U.S. coverage of the "Downing Street memo" - actually the minutes of a British prime minister's meeting on July 23, 2002, during which officials reported on talks with the Bush administration about Iraq. But the memo, which was leaked to The Times of London during the British election campaign, confirms what apologists for the war have always denied: the Bush administration cooked up a case for a war it wanted.

Here's a sample: "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and W.M.D. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Why did the administration want to invade Iraq, when, as the memo noted, "the case was thin" and Saddam's "W.M.D. capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran"? Iraq was perceived as a soft target; a quick victory there, its domestic political advantages aside, could serve as a demonstration of American military might, one that would shock and awe the world.

But the Iraq war has, instead, demonstrated the limits of American power, and emboldened our potential enemies. Why should Kim Jong Il fear us, when we can't even secure the road from Baghdad to the airport?

At this point, the echoes of Vietnam are unmistakable. Reports from the recent offensive near the Syrian border sound just like those from a 1960's search-and-destroy mission, body count and all. Stories filed by reporters actually with the troops suggest that the insurgents, forewarned, mostly melted away, accepting battle only where and when they chose.

Meanwhile, America's strategic position is steadily deteriorating.

Next year, reports Jane's Defense Industry, the United States will spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. Yet the Pentagon now admits that our military is having severe trouble attracting recruits, and would have difficulty dealing with potential foes - those that, unlike Saddam's Iraq, might pose a real threat.

In other words, the people who got us into Iraq have done exactly what they falsely accused Bill Clinton of doing: they have stripped America of its capacity to respond to real threats.

So what's the plan?

The people who sold us this war continue to insist that success is just around the corner, and that things would be fine if the media would just stop reporting bad news. But the administration has declared victory in Iraq at least four times. January's election, it seems, was yet another turning point that wasn't.

Yet it's very hard to discuss getting out. Even most of those who vehemently opposed the war say that we have to stay on in Iraq now that we're there.

In effect, America has been taken hostage. Nobody wants to take responsibility for the terrible scenes that will surely unfold if we leave (even though terrible scenes are unfolding while we're there). Nobody wants to tell the grieving parents of American soldiers that their children died in vain. And nobody wants to be accused, by an administration always ready to impugn other people's patriotism, of stabbing the troops in the back.

But the American military isn't just bogged down in Iraq; it's deteriorating under the strain. We may already be in real danger: what threats, exactly, can we make against the North Koreans? That John Bolton will yell at them? And every year that the war goes on, our military gets weaker.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/16/op...rugman.html?hp

the recruiting problem mentioned above is particularly telling: last month's recruitment goals were missed by 40%. so how come all the chickenhawks, like Rush Limbaugh & Hannity aren't out there asking people to enlist? how come you never hear the prez, the VP, or Rumsfeld trying to pump up the public to sign themselves or their kids up for this war?

it's because they can no longer give out the "fighting in Iraq for our freedom" spiel without looking like fricking idiots, and they know it. they don't want to call attention to the fact that Iraq is a one-way to ticket to hell and they helped create it.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-05, 02:12 PM   #16
multi
Thanks for being with arse
 
multi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
Skull

Quote:
Originally Posted by theknife
it's because they can no longer give out the "fighting in Iraq for our freedom" spiel without looking like fricking idiots, and they know it. they don't want to call attention to the fact that Iraq is a one-way to ticket to hell and they helped create it.
our PM and his lackeys dont mind looking like idiots then
howard was there during 911
i have believed since then he has known full well about the whole charade..

now this whole shady business is coming out into the open...i wonder how they will sidetrack the issue over here..
US ,UK &AUS are up to their armpits in the BS they have created to justify their war for terror

the arabs think flushing of korans happen on a daily basis now..
Attached Images
 
__________________

i beat the internet
- the end boss is hard
multi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-05, 03:13 PM   #17
floydian slip
===\/------/\===
 
floydian slip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,704
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by multi
now this whole shady business is coming out into the open...i wonder how they will sidetrack the issue over here..
US ,UK &AUS are up to their armpits in the BS they have created to justify their war for terror
nothing like a terror event and a new war to keep our sleepy sheep in the dark

Quote:
Originally Posted by multi
the arabs think flushing of korans happen on a daily basis now..
Breaking News by Rossputin

In their upcoming Monday edition (dated 5/23), Newsweek now says they can not verify their story that there were incidents of "Qur'an desecration" at Guantanamo. Those charges were the apparent cause of riots in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Indonesia that left dozens dead and many more injured in the past week.

http://www.legendgames.net/showstory.../WN0000145.txt
floydian slip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-05, 06:47 AM   #18
malvachat
My eyes are now open.
 
malvachat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oxford uk
Posts: 1,409
Default

"nothing like a terror event and a new war to keep our sleepy sheep in the dark"


What a wonderful way to put things.
I think to goes to the heart of the problem we all face.
Getting a different view out to people.
Then again you can lead sheep to water,can't make them drink.
Then again if they're week,they're easier to fleece.
__________________
Beer is for life not just Christmas
malvachat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-05, 06:33 PM   #19
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by floydian slip
In their upcoming Monday edition (dated 5/23), Newsweek now says they can not verify their story that there were incidents of "Qur'an desecration" at Guantanamo. Those charges were the apparent cause of riots in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Indonesia that left dozens dead and many more injured in the past week.
funny you should bring that up...

Quote:
(White House Press Secretary) MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I find it puzzling that Newsweek now acknowledges that the facts were wrong, and they refuse to offer a retraction. There is a certain journalistic standard that should be met, and in this case it was not met. The report was not accurate, and it was based on a single anonymous source who cannot personally substantiate the report, so the -- so they cannot verify the accuracy of the report. White House Press Gaggle - 4/15/05
here we have the White House lecturing Newsweek on their lack of judgement for running with this story based on a single, unverified source. Scott McClellan has a short memory; it was about a year he was trying to justify Bush taking the whole country to war, based on several single unverified sources:

Quote:
QUESTION: Does it concern the President that the primary source for the intelligence on the mobile biological weapons labs was a guy that U.S. intelligence never even interviewed?
MCCLELLAN: Well, again, all these issues will be looked at as part of a broad review by the independent commission that the President appointed… But it's important that we look at what we learn on the ground and compare that
with what we believed prior to going into Iraq.

[White House Press Gaggle, 4/5/04]
the White House is also criticizing Newsweek for a lack of accountability:

Quote:
QUESTION: He's the president of the United States. This thing he told the country on the verge of taking the nation to war has turned out to be, by your own account, not reliable. That's his fault, isn't it?
MCCLELLAN: No.

[White House Press Briefing, 7/17/03]
ironic, ain't it?
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-05, 07:25 PM   #20
Nicobie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 5,522
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by malvachat
"nothing like a terror event and a new war to keep our sleepy sheep in the dark"


What a wonderful way to put things.
I think to goes to the heart of the problem we all face.
Getting a different view out to people.
Then again you can lead sheep to water,can't make them drink.
Then again if they're week,they're easier to fleece.

One more time malvo cut thru the chit.
__________________
May your tote always stay tight and your edge eversharp :wink:
Nicobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump






All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)