'Downing Street' Memos Show Bush and Blair Administrations Lied Watch

This discussion is closed.
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#21
Report 13 years ago
#21
(Original post by Iz the Wiz)
You said that The Guardian's endorsement of Kerry "backfired" and resulted in the election of George W. Bush. I said: "Yeah, right, all those Red Staters were reading The Guardian. That's a good one." In other words: the vast majority of Bush voters (and Kerry voters, for that matter) don't read the Guardian & don't have any idea what it says. Nothing that the Guardian did "hideously backfired" (and by the way, why would you call this hideous? Isn't it the outcome you wanted?).
http://www.perfect.co.uk/2004/10/ope...save-the-world
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselection...329858,00.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...ixopinion.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pag...ounty.000.html
0
Iz the Wiz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#22
Report 13 years ago
#22
(Original post by Vienna)
Thats certainly an opinion. Not one I hold and not one I will take as fact.
What won't you take as fact---the assertion that Peter Ricketts wrote this memo (not as a leading article in The Independent, bent on making America look bad, but as a private communication to British policy-makers), in his professional capacity as the Prime Minister's chief foreign policy adviser? Or the opinion expressed by Ricketts, who is both candid (in this context) and unusually well-informed (given his position)?
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#23
Report 13 years ago
#23
(Original post by Iz the Wiz)
What won't you take as fact---the assertion that Peter Ricketts wrote this memo (not as a leading article in The Independent, bent on making America look bad, but as a private communication to British policy-makers), in his professional capacity as the Prime Minister's chief foreign policy adviser? Or the opinion expressed by Ricketts, who is both candid (in this context) and unusually well-informed (given his position)?
The opinion of Mr.Ricketts.

The US never claimed a solid link between Iraq and those that committed the attacks on 9/11. As the memos show there were alot of questions, questions that persisted. The British government rightly raised these questions before they committed themselves to any action.
0
Iz the Wiz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#24
Report 13 years ago
#24
Well, this is the first I've heard of "Operation Clark County," but your sources say that very few letters actually arrived because the system was hacked. This is interesting trivia but can't be considered decisive in the last election.

Is the tone of the American letters printed here your idea of "the integrity of Americans"?
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#25
Report 13 years ago
#25
(Original post by Iz the Wiz)
Well, this is the first I've heard of "Operation Clark County," but your sources say that very few letters actually arrived because the system was hacked. This is interesting trivia but can't be considered decisive in the last election.
Whether it was successful or not is irrelevant to the fact that a major British newspaper made such an ignorant and arrogant attempt to interfere into something that did not concern them. I happen to agree with opinions such as this,

"I just read a hilarious proposal to involve your readership in the upcoming US presidential election. At least, I'm hoping that it is genius satire. Nothing will do more to undermine the Democratic cause in Ohio than having patronising Brits wander around Clark County telling people how to vote. Just, for a second, imagine if the Washington Post sent folks from Ohio to do the same in Oxfordshire. I'm saying this as a Democrat, and as someone who has spent the last few years in the UK. That is, with all due respect. Please, please, be rational, and move slowly away from the self-defeating hubris. "

and the sentiment of this, "Real Americans aren't interested in your pansy-ass, tea-sipping opinions. If you want to save the world, begin with your own worthless corner of it."
0
material breach
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#26
Report 13 years ago
#26
(Original post by Vienna)
Sounds reasonable. There was intelligence and facts and a policy, and the intelligence and facts had to justify the policy.
That is completely different to what is written. What I quoted suggested facts were ignored if they didnt fit the policy.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#27
Report 13 years ago
#27
(Original post by material breach)
That is completely different to what is written. What I quoted suggested facts were ignored if they didnt fit the policy.
It suggested? There were facts and intelligence, and they were fixed around a chosen policy as a means to justify it.
0
Iz the Wiz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#28
Report 13 years ago
#28
(Original post by Vienna)
The opinion of Mr.Ricketts.

The US never claimed a solid link between Iraq and those that comitted the attacks on 9/11. As the memos show there were alot of questions, questions that persisted. The British government rightly raised these questions before they committed themselves to any action.
!!! **** Cheney was practically on a PR mission to plant the link in Americans' heads! A few examples:

"The Bush administration has long claimed links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, and cited them as one reason for last year's invasion of Iraq. On Monday, Vice President **** Cheney said in a speech that the Iraqi dictator 'had long established ties with al-Qaida.''' ---Associated Press, June 16, 2004

"The Bush administration has asserted that Saddam's government had links to Al Qaeda, the terrorist network led by Usama bin Laden that masterminded the Sept. 11 attacks. And in various public statements over the past year or so administration officials have suggested close links. Vice President **** Cheney said on Sunday, for example, that success in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq would strike a major blow at the 'the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9-11.'" ---FoxNews, September 16, 2003

"RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

CHENEY: No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection." ---On Meet the Press in 2003

(Yeah, I bet it's "not surprising," ****! It's the fruits of your labor!)
0
material breach
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#29
Report 13 years ago
#29
(Original post by Vienna)
It suggested? There were facts and intelligence, and they were fixed around a chosen policy as a means to justify it.
So you agree they had already decided on invading Iraq and the facts were fixed around the policy?
0
Iz the Wiz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#30
Report 13 years ago
#30
(Original post by Vienna)
and this, "Real Americans aren't interested in your pansy-ass, tea-sipping opinions. If you want to save the world, begin with your own worthless corner of it."
Jesus. You agree with that? First of all, as a matter of elementary psychology, the guy who wrote that is no rugged Marlboro man, but a narrow-shouldered impotent wuss who couldn't fight my grandmother. I would bet money on it. Second, it's the most pathetic kind of inarticulate snarling; it sounds like a six-year-old venting his frustrations on distant foreigners who "talk funny."
0
material breach
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#31
Report 13 years ago
#31
(Original post by Iz the Wiz)
Jesus. You agree with that? First of all, as a matter of elementary psychology, the guy who wrote that is no rugged Marlboro man, but a narrow-shouldered impotent wuss who couldn't fight my grandmother. I would bet money on it. Second, it's the most pathetic kind of inarticulate snarling; it sounds like a six-year-old venting his frustrations on distant foreigners who "talk funny."
sounds slightly xenophobic to me
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#32
Report 13 years ago
#32
(Original post by material breach)
So you agree they had already decided on invading Iraq and the facts were fixed around the policy?
The US had decided that the situation in Iraq had to change and were trying to justify their case for British support. The British rightly had questions.
0
Iz the Wiz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#33
Report 13 years ago
#33
(Original post by material breach)
sounds slightly xenophobic to me
Yeah, just slightly!
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#34
Report 13 years ago
#34
(Original post by Iz the Wiz)
!!! **** Cheney was practically on a PR mission to plant the link in Americans' heads! A few examples:

"The Bush administration has long claimed links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, and cited them as one reason for last year's invasion of Iraq. On Monday, Vice President **** Cheney said in a speech that the Iraqi dictator 'had long established ties with al-Qaida.''' ---Associated Press, June 16, 2004

"The Bush administration has asserted that Saddam's government had links to Al Qaeda, the terrorist network led by Usama bin Laden that masterminded the Sept. 11 attacks. And in various public statements over the past year or so administration officials have suggested close links. Vice President **** Cheney said on Sunday, for example, that success in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq would strike a major blow at the 'the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9-11.'" ---FoxNews, September 16, 2003
I fully agree, there is evidence that there were links between Saddam and various operatives within the Al-Qaeda network. Cheney went to great lengths to specifically illustrate the nature of these ties, something that the chair of the 9/11 Commission corroborated.

"RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

CHENEY: No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection." ---On Meet the Press in 2003

(Yeah, I bet it's "not surprising," ****! It's the fruits of your labor!)
He didnt however say it was true, and he didnt ever claim it to be the case. Neither did Bush or anyone else in the administration. When asked, Bush made clear that they could not make that connection.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#35
Report 13 years ago
#35
(Original post by Iz the Wiz)
Jesus. You agree with that? First of all, as a matter of elementary psychology, the guy who wrote that is no rugged Marlboro man, but a narrow-shouldered impotent wuss who couldn't fight my grandmother. I would bet money on it. Second, it's the most pathetic kind of inarticulate snarling; it sounds like a six-year-old venting his frustrations on distant foreigners who "talk funny."
Seems very articulate to me, and whoever wrote it, irrespective of his physical capability, clearly was frustrated with distant foreigners who were trying to influence his vote with their opinions.
0
Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#36
Report 13 years ago
#36
This story is really of zero interest in America. Even left wing papers like the washington post, which would love to publish anything that would hurt the Bush administration, have no interest in the story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...05.html?sub=AR

Maybe it's because this isn't really anything newsworthy?
0
Iz the Wiz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#37
Report 13 years ago
#37
(Original post by Vienna)
I fully agree, there is evidence that there were links between Saddam and various operatives within the Al-Qaeda network. Cheney went to great lengths to specifically illustrate the nature of these ties, something that the chair of the 9/11 Commission corroborated.
What?! The 9/11 Commission directly contradicted Cheney's claims. Again from Associated Press: "WASHINGTON - Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was 'no credible evidence' that Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaida target the United States."

Thomas H. Kean (the chair of the 9/11 Commission you referred to): "What our staff statement found is there is no credible evidence that we can discover, after a long investigation, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein in any way were part of the attack on the United States." (quoted in the Washington Post)

United Press International: Kean "added that there much more evidence of links between al-Qaida and Iran or Pakistan than Iraq"



He didnt however say it was true, and he didnt ever claim it to be the case. Neither did Bush or anyone else in the administration. When asked, Bush made clear that they could not make that connection.
Right. They're smart enough to give the right answer to a direct question. But do you really, actually, honestly believe that Cheney wasn't making a deliberate effort to plant this belief in Americans' minds?
0
Iz the Wiz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#38
Report 13 years ago
#38
(Original post by Made in the USA)
This story is really of zero interest in America. Even left wing papers like the washington post, which would love to publish anything that would hurt the Bush administration, have no interest in the story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...05.html?sub=AR

Maybe it's because this isn't really anything newsworthy?
From your link: "Of course, if 'intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy,' rather than vice versa, that is pretty good evidence of Bush's intentions, as well as a scandal in its own right."

This is exactly the point we "lefties" have been making on this thread.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#39
Report 13 years ago
#39
(Original post by Iz the Wiz)
What?! The 9/11 Commission directly contradicted Cheney's claims. Again from Associated Press: "WASHINGTON - Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was 'no credible evidence' that Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaida target the United States."

Thomas H. Kean (the chair of the 9/11 Commission you referred to): "What our staff statement found is there is no credible evidence that we can discover, after a long investigation, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein in any way were part of the attack on the United States." (quoted in the Washington Post)
Theres a difference between a link with Al-Qaeda and a link with 9/11. The former was corroborated by the chair of the 9/11 Commission and the administration never claimed the latter.

"Thomas H. Kean, chairman of the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, reiterated Sunday that the inquiry turned up no evidence that Iraq or its former leader, Saddam Hussein, had taken part "in any way in attacks on the United States."

But Mr. Kean said that conclusion, made public last week, did not put the commission at odds with the Bush administration's contention that links existed between the terrorist group Al Qaeda and Iraq.

"Were there contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq?" Kean asked himself. "Yes . . . no question." Hamilton joined in: "The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections . . . we don't disagree with that" — just "no credible evidence" of Iraqi cooperation in the 9/11 attack.

Right. They're smart enough to give the right answer to a direct question. But do you really, actually, honestly believe that Cheney wasn't making a deliberate effort to plant the belief of this "link" in Americas' minds?
He articulated the links that were supported by the intelligence he saw.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#40
Report 13 years ago
#40
(Original post by Iz the Wiz)
From your link: "Of course, if 'intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy,' rather than vice versa, that is pretty good evidence of Bush's intentions, as well as a scandal in its own right."

This is exactly the point we "lefties" have been making on this thread.
Which policy and which point?
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (145)
38.36%
No - but I will (21)
5.56%
No - I don't want to (28)
7.41%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (184)
48.68%

Watched Threads

View All