Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Which policy and which point?
    I'm tired of lackeying to your short attention span. Read post #10, for example.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (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?).
    They were trying to get their readership to write letters to residents of Ohio to try to get them to vote against Bush. This was VERY widely publicized in Ohio and the Guardian played a role (how much of a role is debatable) in helping bush win Ohio, which was a key state in the 2004 election.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    I'm tired of lackeying to your short attention span. Read post #10, for example.
    Ive read post 10 and youve seen my response to it. We dont know where this specific policy arose from. We do know that removing Saddam was a Senate policy from 1998.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Ive read post 10 and youve seen my response to it. We dont know where this specific policy arose from. We do know that removing Saddam was a Senate policy from 1998.
    But we do know it wasnt based on facts as these came after the policy. Also I would hope we could keep this thread on topic about the memo rather than Guardian readers as that is a compartively small issue compared to misleading 300 million people.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    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.
    Yeah, but he also said that there were much stronger links with (for instance) Pakistan and Iran. Obviously this is a question of whether invading Iraq was consistent with a real attempt to defeat terror---i.e., is Iraq really the present enemy as a response to 9/11?---and nothing in the Commission's report says that it was.



    He articulated the links that were supported by the intelligence he saw.
    That's not what I asked you. I asked you, do you honestly believe he wasn't trying to give the wrong impression?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by material breach)
    But we do know it wasnt based on facts as these came after the policy.
    No we dont, we know that the US administration was fitting the intelligence and facts around a policy. This appears to be, in the context of this memo, a means to build up the case for action against Saddam in a request for British support. We dont know where the policy came from based on this memo.

    Also I would hope we could keep this thread on topic about the memo rather than Guardian readers as that is a compartively small issue compared to misleading 300 million people.
    How does this memo suggest anyone was mislead?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    Yeah, but he also said that there were much stronger links with (for instance) Pakistan and Iran.
    Thats not really the point you were arguing.

    That's not what I asked you. I asked you, do you honestly believe he wasn't trying to give the wrong impression?
    Yes, based on the transcripts and VT ive seen.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Ive read post 10 and youve seen my response to it. We dont know where this specific policy arose from. We do know that removing Saddam was a Senate policy from 1998.
    Yes, yes indeed we do. It's always been fervently pushed by the same neocon chicken hawks in the Project for the New American Century, and our leaders have always given the same justifications for it: "Saddam gassed his own people" (right, with our approval and support) and "Saddam & his WMDs are an imminent threat." The 9/11 thing was a new one. You want to talk about "appalling"? How about using the biggest mass murder in American history to justify your elite businessmans club's pet military expedition?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    No we dont, we know that the US administration was fitting the intelligence and facts around a policy. This appears to be, in the context of this memo, a means to build up the case for action against Saddam in a request for British support. We dont know where the policy came from based on this memo.
    You havent justified the no at the start of that sentance. The memo clearly says we have a policy arrange the facts around it. So clearly the facts came after the policy.
    (Original post by Vienna)
    How does this memo suggest anyone was mislead?
    By implication, if the war was illegal and we were told it was legal then we were misled.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    Yes, yes indeed we do. It's always been fervently pushed by the same neocon chicken hawks in the Project for the New American Century, and our leaders have always given the same justifications for it
    Leaders such as President Clinton who was the President at the time it became Senate policy?

    The 9/11 thing was a new one.
    Naturally 9/11 was a justification for a firm re-examination of American foreign policy and a swift implication of it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Thats not really the point you were arguing.
    It's the point I've been arguing all along. Was there ever credible justification for this Iraq war? And Kean's shallow assertion of "links" is no answer. Especially when he's naming countries offhand that were in deeper than Iraq.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Leaders such as President Clinton who was the President at the time it became Senate policy?
    Yeah, President Clinton! You think I'm going to defend that lousy lying bum?



    Naturally 9/11 was a justification for a firm re-examination of American foreign policy and a swift implication of it.
    Naturally. That's what makes handing the reigns over to a bunch of corporate stooges so despicable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by material breach)
    You havent justified the no at the start of that sentance. The memo clearly says we have a policy arrange the facts around it.
    In presenting that policy to the British. If I had a policy that others were sceptical of, I would present that policy with the facts and intelligence that I felt justified it. The memo doesnt tell us where the US administration developed the policy or how they developed it. Such information is unlikely to be detailed in a memo containing minutes of a meeting between the British advisers and the PM.

    By implication, if the war was illegal and we were told it was legal then we were misled.
    How is this memo relevant to this argument?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    It's the point I've been arguing all along.
    "What?! The 9/11 Commission directly contradicted Cheney's claims."

    They clearly didnt.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    Yeah, President Clinton! You think I'm going to defend that lousy lying bum?
    Not if you dont want to.

    Naturally. That's what makes handing the reigns over to a bunch of corporate stooges so despicable.
    Who are these "corporate stooges"?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)

    Who are these "corporate stooges"?
    The New American Century crowd---people like Fukuyama and Wolfowitz---plus Cheney, Paul Bremer, Bush himself, really.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    "What?! The 9/11 Commission directly contradicted Cheney's claims."

    They clearly didnt.
    Cheney: "[Iraq is] the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9-11."

    The 9/11 Commission: "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    Cheney: "[Iraq is] the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9-11."

    The 9/11 Commission: "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States."
    Well, I disagree with Cheney on his assertion, but irrespective of that he doesnt say that Saddam cooperated on the 9/11 attacks.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    *yawn*
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    The New American Century crowd---people like Fukuyama and Wolfowitz---plus Cheney, Paul Bremer, Bush himself, really.
    What do you mean by corporate stooges? And none of the above are on the directorial staff of PNAC.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 24, 2005
The home of Results and Clearing

2,802

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.