Did the Bush administration lie re WMD?

[Pogo]

Neither you nor I know what the administration actually believed, but we do know that it's impossible for cheney to have known one way or the other whether Saddam still had WMD, hence, he lied.

As for "broken intelligence", that's another of the administration's lies because they decided to get involved in both the gathering and analyzation of Intelligence re Iraq and they made the decision to do so because the existing Intelligence estimate didn't provide a damning enough case to sell the war to Congress and the public.


Not so, since the intelligence was telling them otherwise Pogo.

President Clinton, Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger, and Nancy Pelosi spoke of the WMD's they thought Iraq had and feared their usage. Does that make them liars since they couldn't have known for sure?
Intelligence is second hand information and it simply isn't possible to *know* something on that basis. One can speculate and try to gage possibilities and probabilities but it simply isn't possible, if we are honest about it, to know something on such a basis.

Furthermore, at the point that the Bush administration decided to go cherrypicking, the "Intelligence" became disinformation.

[BoogyMan]

Neither you nor I know what the administration actually believed, but we do know that it's impossible for cheney to have known one way or the other whether Saddam still had WMD, hence, he lied.

As for "broken intelligence", that's another of the administration's lies because they decided to get involved in both the gathering and analyzation of Intelligence re Iraq and they made the decision to do so because the existing Intelligence estimate didn't provide a damning enough case to sell the war to Congress and the public.


Not so, since the intelligence was telling them otherwise Pogo.

President Clinton, Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger, and Nancy Pelosi spoke of the WMD's they thought Iraq had and feared their usage. Does that make them liars since they couldn't have known for sure?
Intelligence is second hand information and it simply isn't possible to *know* something on that basis. One can speculate and try to gage possibilities and probabilities but it simply isn't possible, if we are honest about it, to know something on such a basis.

Furthermore, at the point that the Bush administration decided to go cherrypicking, the "Intelligence" became disinformation.


Hi Pogo.

Our government has acted on "intelligence" since it began, taking action on intel does not make a lie, nor does the simple desire to claim that we were lied into war.

If they lied about WMD so did those over whom I queried you earlier. I will repost in the commentary here for our discussion.


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

There was a well established belief on both sides of the aisle that Saddam was building WMDs, if that belief equates to a lie it equates to a lie for all involved.

[Elrathin]

The problem I have with it though Boogy is not so much as he lied about the WMD, but the question I have is whether he acted on intelligence he knew had holes. Again, there is a difference in thinking someone had WMD, and acting on it. While all those people you listed thought he may have them, none of them got us into a war over it.

[BoogyMan]

The problem I have with it though Boogy is not so much as he lied about the WMD, but the question I have is whether he acted on intelligence he knew had holes. Again, there is a difference in thinking someone had WMD, and acting on it. While all those people you listed thought he may have them, none of them got us into a war over it.


I can partially agree with you here Elrathin. While I don't know if Bush saw intelligence that he knew had holes, I can say that we should have learned a great deal from the runup to the war and the verification of intelligence used to get us there.

I must differ in that those folks listed who remained in office during the runup to the war had a hand in it as well.

I don't believe we were lied into war, I do however believe that we thought we were doing the right thing and were precipitous in our actions.

[Pogo]

Hi Pogo.

Our government has acted on "intelligence" since it began, taking action on intel does not make a lie, nor does the simple desire to claim that we were lied into war.

If they lied about WMD so did those over whom I queried you earlier. I will repost in the commentary here for our discussion.

There was a well established belief on both sides of the aisle that Saddam was building WMDs, if that belief equates to a lie it equates to a lie for all involved.

There's nothing wrong with acting on Intelligence but when you claim to know something on that basis, you've stepped over the line and are lying.

And once again, believing and *knowing* are two different things. The Dems may well have believed that Iraq still had WMD but none of them, so far as I'm aware, claimed to know that for certain. If you can show otherwise then I won't have any qualms about acknowledging that they're lying. Lying is lying and it doesn't make a bit of difference to me what side of the aisle we're talking about.

[BoogyMan]

Hi Pogo.

Our government has acted on "intelligence" since it began, taking action on intel does not make a lie, nor does the simple desire to claim that we were lied into war.

If they lied about WMD so did those over whom I queried you earlier. I will repost in the commentary here for our discussion.

There was a well established belief on both sides of the aisle that Saddam was building WMDs, if that belief equates to a lie it equates to a lie for all involved.

There's nothing wrong with acting on Intelligence but when you claim to know something on that basis, you've stepped over the line and are lying.

And once again, believing and *knowing* are two different things. The Dems may well have believed that Iraq still had WMD but none of them, so far as I'm aware, claimed to know that for certain. If you can show otherwise then I won't have any qualms about acknowledging that they're lying. Lying is lying and it doesn't make a bit of difference to me what side of the aisle we're talking about.


Pogo, the position you are staking out, saying that acting on intelligence is lying, is an untenable one and condemns most every administration this country has had.

Read those quotes I provided you Pogo, they were not wishy washy, they were definitive in their assertions.

I appreciate your view, but I certainly cannot agree with it as the standard is nebulous.

[lily]

There's nothing wrong with acting on Intelligence but when you claim to know something on that basis, you've stepped over the line and are lying.

And once again, believing and *knowing* are two different things. The Dems may well have believed that Iraq still had WMD but none of them, so far as I'm aware, claimed to know that for certain. If you can show otherwise then I won't have any qualms about acknowledging that they're lying. Lying is lying and it doesn't make a bit of difference to me what side of the aisle we're talking about.



I'd like to add something Pogo. You reap what you sow.

With Bush putting the blame on bad intelligence, it leave us where we are now. Not believing in our own intelligence.

They could have a picture of Alphabet Soup Name with his finger on the trigger of a nuke with "Made in Iran" engraved on it, and after getting stung so badly by "bad intel", no Democrat is going to take them at their word and the American public sure won't again.

There is always a "fall guy". It's why you can't really call him a liar.....he shifts the blame.

[Pogo]

Pogo, the position you are staking out, saying that acting on intelligence is lying, is an untenable one and condemns most every administration this country has had.
If you go to war on the basis of Intelligence that you know has been doctored then you are lying, and you're also lying if you claim to know something on the basis of second-hand information.



Read those quotes I provided you Pogo, they were not wishy washy, they were definitive in their assertions.

I appreciate your view, but I certainly cannot agree with it as the standard is nebulous.

The quote which comes closest to lying is Pelosi's but it's in the past tense. If you changed "has been" to "is" it would be a lie, as she's not in a position to know such a thing for certain.

BTW, I'm not a Democrat and in my experience, lying is far more the rule than the exception when it comes to politicians.

[BoogyMan]

Pogo, the position you are staking out, saying that acting on intelligence is lying, is an untenable one and condemns most every administration this country has had.
If you go to war on the basis of Intelligence that you know has been doctored then you are lying, and you're also lying if you claim to know something on the basis of second-hand information.


Read those quotes I provided you Pogo, they were not wishy washy, they were definitive in their assertions.

I appreciate your view, but I certainly cannot agree with it as the standard is nebulous.

The quote which comes closest to lying is Pelosi's but it's in the past tense. If you changed "has been" to "is" it would be a lie, as she's not in a position to know such a thing for certain.

BTW, I'm not a Democrat and in my experience, lying is far more the rule than the exception when it comes to politicians.


I have to agree with you that, with regard to politicians, lying is more the rule than the exception. I would also have to disagree with the definitive nature of your claim that it was doctored intelligence though.

Each of those quotes simply shows that there was a firm foundation of suspicion with regard to Saddam's activities even before the current administration came to power, a fact that is all too often overlooked.

[Pogo]

I'd like to add something Pogo. You reap what you sow.

With Bush putting the blame on bad intelligence, it leave us where we are now. Not believing in our own intelligence.

They could have a picture of Alphabet Soup Name with his finger on the trigger of a nuke with "Made in Iran" engraved on it, and after getting stung so badly by "bad intel", no Democrat is going to take them at their word and the American public sure won't again.

There is always a "fall guy". It's why you can't really call him a liar.....he shifts the blame.

Cheney stepped over the line in that quote I posted in the other thread. Not sure if Bush made a similar gaffe but he certainly pushed the envelope.

Bush has certainly made a lot of enemies in the Intel biz, and the military, too. An awful lot of people are paying for his blunders in blood and ruined lives, and for what?

But I look at it this way: if the Dems really were the good guys, the Repubs would be hard-pressed to win dogcatcher in Podunk. They really suck, too, IMO, and Bush is the wake-up call that we get for allowing the Dems to lull us into a false sense of security. We're fat, lazy consumers far more than we are responsible citizens of a free republic.


Cheers[hr]
I have to agree with you that, with regard to politicians, lying is more the rule than the exception. I would also have to disagree with the definitive nature of your claim that it was doctored intelligence though.
We do know that Rumsfeld set up an Intelligence boutique in the Pentagon called the Office of Special Plans, which among other things was running Chalabi, a man that the CIA and State Dept. knew to have questionable motives; and we also know that the VP was going over to Langley for impromptu visits, which is unprecedented as far as I'm aware; and then there's the Downing Street memo; and there's the fact that Bush pulled the trigger in spite of Blix stating that extending the inspections was warranted.

Now, how much doubt do you think there is that the bush administration politicized the Intelligence?


Each of those quotes simply shows that there was a firm foundation of suspicion with regard to Saddam's activities even before the current administration came to power, a fact that is all too often overlooked.

No question about there being suspicion on both sides of the aisle.

Edit: Not sure how these two posts got merged. Not my intention.

[quiet man]

so bush isn't the only president who has lied. every one that we have had has done it. bush is the most recent president who has perfected it into an art form. now after all the lies he can't tell the truth to himself nor remember which is the truth or which is the lie!

[Stoner]

Well if you want to get technical they did indeed find WMDs in Iraq. It wasn't what they were expecting but they did come across WMDs.

It's no secret Hussein had large stockpiles of WMDs. I never have and never will believe the intelligence was bad. The WMDs Hussein possessed were most likely smuggled out of the country weeks before the invasion. It would be extremely easy to do this in Iraq under Hussein's rule.

[BoogyMan]

I have to agree with you that, with regard to politicians, lying is more the rule than the exception. I would also have to disagree with the definitive nature of your claim that it was doctored intelligence though.
We do know that Rumsfeld set up an Intelligence boutique in the Pentagon called the Office of Special Plans, which among other things was running Chalabi, a man that the CIA and State Dept. knew to have questionable motives; and we also know that the VP was going over to Langley for impromptu visits, which is unprecedented as far as I'm aware; and then there's the Downing Street memo; and there's the fact that Bush pulled the trigger in spite of Blix stating that extending the inspections was warranted.

Now, how much doubt do you think there is that the bush administration politicized the Intelligence?

We know NOW that Chalabi had an axe to grind Pogo, the problem with hindsight is that it is ALWAYS 20/20.

Each of those quotes simply shows that there was a firm foundation of suspicion with regard to Saddam's activities even before the current administration came to power, a fact that is all too often overlooked.

No question about there being suspicion on both sides of the aisle.

Edit: Not sure how these two posts got merged. Not my intention.


There is a feature of the MyBB software that merges multiple posts from the same poster that line up one after another. That is what merged them for you automagically. :D

[Pogo]

We know NOW that Chalabi had an axe to grind Pogo, the problem with hindsight is that it is ALWAYS 20/20.
Actually, State and CIA knew prior to his being used by OSP but they weren't considered to be "team players".

Nothing to say about the Downing Street memo?


There is a feature of the MyBB software that merges multiple posts from the same poster that line up one after another. That is what merged them for you automagically. :D

Anyway to disable it, I much prefer to keep posts separate?


Cheers

[lily]

Well if you want to get technical they did indeed find WMDs in Iraq. It wasn't what they were expecting but they did come across WMDs.

It's no secret Hussein had large stockpiles of WMDs. I never have and never will believe the intelligence was bad. The WMDs Hussein possessed were most likely smuggled out of the country weeks before the invasion. It would be extremely easy to do this in Iraq under Hussein's rule.


This makes no sense at all. You know your country is going to be invaded, so you send your weapons to another country and not only that, but you stay there so you can hide in a spidey hole?

[BoogyMan]

We know NOW that Chalabi had an axe to grind Pogo, the problem with hindsight is that it is ALWAYS 20/20.
Actually, State and CIA knew prior to his being used by OSP but they weren't considered to be "team players".

Nothing to say about the Downing Street memo?

I have been reading over that thing for months and don't see it as many do, Pogo.


There is a feature of the MyBB software that merges multiple posts from the same poster that line up one after another. That is what merged them for you automagically. :D

Anyway to disable it, I much prefer to keep posts separate?

Cheers


It is an always on feature. Sorry.

[Pogo]

I have been reading over that thing for months and don't see it as many do, Pogo.
How do you see it?


It is an always on feature. Sorry.

No problemo. :)

[ViolaLee]

The Downing Street Memo said the Bush Administration was fixing the intelligence around his agenda to invade Iraq.

How else can one take it but just as it reads?

They made the Office of Special Plans for just that reason. That's exactly what the Office of Special Plans did.

[BoogyMan]

I have been reading over that thing for months and don't see it as many do, Pogo.
How do you see it?

Is see the following:

Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

As gathering information and putting it in place in support of the policy.

This by no means supports, in my view, the radical declarations of some that the word "fixed" as used here means made up.

Also, consider another memo from later in the month that didn't get quite so much air time. You will need to register to read it online, but the registration is free (just a pain).


Prewar British Memo Says War Decision Wasn't Made

Source: Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/13/politics/13downing.html?ei=5070&en=9ac81339352b977a&ex=1190260800&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1190117190-2JBP34bftSWSa1d1PzS+Fg)

WASHINGTON, June 12 - A memorandum written by Prime Minister Tony Blair's cabinet office in late July 2002 explicitly states that the Bush administration had made "no political decisions" to invade Iraq, but that American military planning for the possibility was advanced. The memo also said American planning, in the eyes of Mr. Blair's aides, was "virtually silent" on the problems of a postwar occupation.

"A postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise," warned the memorandum, prepared July 21 for a meeting with Mr. Blair a few days later. It also appeared to take as a given the presence of illicit weapons in Iraq - an assumption that later proved almost entirely wrong - and warned that merely removing Saddam Hussein from power would not guarantee that those weapons could be secured.

A transcript of the memorandum was posted Sunday on the Web site of The Sunday Times of London, after The Washington Post, citing one of the British paper's own correspondents as a source, published excerpts. No image of the original was included, The Times said, to protect its source; a note on the Web site said the last page was missing.

Officials at the British Foreign Office in London, while insisting on anonymity, said in response to queries from The New York Times that they would not dispute the authenticity of the document. A spokesman for the White House, David Almacy, said that while he could not comment on its authenticity, it "was written eight months before the war began. There was significant postwar planning in the time that elapsed."

A British official in Washington said the British government never commented on internal documents made public in the press. But he said that "of course there was concern" in the government before the war about the need for "a full and consistent postconflict plan."

The publication of the memorandum is significant because a previously leaked document, now known as the Downing Street Memo, appeared to suggest that a decision to go to war may have been made that summer. In Washington last week, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair denied that they made any decision in 2002, and suggested that the memorandum was being misinterpreted.

"No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all," Mr. Blair said, adding that "no one knows more intimately the discussions that we were conducting as two countries at the time than me."

The White House has insisted that Mr. Bush did not make the decision to invade Iraq until after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented the administration's case about Iraqi weapons to the United Nations Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003. That presentation has been discredited in postwar investigations. The White House has also argued that by the time of the invasion it had a sophisticated plan for administering Iraq, even though that plan, as Mr. Bush himself has acknowledged, failed to anticipate a postwar insurgency.

While the latest memorandum appears to have been written by a British intelligence official after a visit to Washington, the central fact reported - that the American military was in the midst of advanced planning for an invasion of Iraq - was no secret. The New York Times published details of that plan two weeks before the memorandum was written.

Still, it is revealing about what was known - and assumed - at that time. After noting the risks of a lengthy postwar occupation, the memorandum says that "U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Further work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired endstate would be created, in particular what form of government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime and the timescale within which it would be possible to identify a successor."

On unconventional weapons, the memorandum also discloses doubts - but not that they existed.

"U.S. military planning unambiguously takes as its objective the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, followed by elimination of Iraqi W.M.D. It is however, by no means certain, in the view of U.K. officials, that one would necessarily follow from the other. Even if regime change is a necessary condition for controlling Iraqi W.M.D., it is certainly not a sufficient one."

Did we have a plan in place? Yes, we also have plans in place to invade Canada and England if necessary, this point is pretty well made I think. Does the DSM show us lying a war into existence? I don't believe so.

What this memo DOES point out is that we truly had no postwar plan in place to finish the job.

[Deadshot]

Did we have a plan in place? Yes, we also have plans in place to invade Canada and England if necessary, this point is pretty well made I think. Does the DSM show us lying a war into existence? I don't believe so.

What this memo DOES point out is that we truly had no postwar plan in place to finish the job.


But part of a war plan is having a post-war plan. Ergo, by the strict definition of a "War Plan", we did not have a complete one.

Once again, the Bush Administration shows it's ass...:unreal:

[lily]

I have been reading over that thing for months and don't see it as many do, Pogo.
How do you see it?

Is see the following:

Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

As gathering information and putting it in place in support of the policy.

This by no means supports, in my view, the radical declarations of some that the word "fixed" as used here means made up.

Also, consider another memo from later in the month that didn't get quite so much air time. You will need to register to read it online, but the registration is free (just a pain).


Prewar British Memo Says War Decision Wasn't Made

Source: Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/13/politics/13downing.html?ei=5070&en=9ac81339352b977a&ex=1190260800&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1190117190-2JBP34bftSWSa1d1PzS+Fg)

WASHINGTON, June 12 - A memorandum written by Prime Minister Tony Blair's cabinet office in late July 2002 explicitly states that the Bush administration had made "no political decisions" to invade Iraq, but that American military planning for the possibility was advanced. The memo also said American planning, in the eyes of Mr. Blair's aides, was "virtually silent" on the problems of a postwar occupation.

"A postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise," warned the memorandum, prepared July 21 for a meeting with Mr. Blair a few days later. It also appeared to take as a given the presence of illicit weapons in Iraq - an assumption that later proved almost entirely wrong - and warned that merely removing Saddam Hussein from power would not guarantee that those weapons could be secured.

A transcript of the memorandum was posted Sunday on the Web site of The Sunday Times of London, after The Washington Post, citing one of the British paper's own correspondents as a source, published excerpts. No image of the original was included, The Times said, to protect its source; a note on the Web site said the last page was missing.

Officials at the British Foreign Office in London, while insisting on anonymity, said in response to queries from The New York Times that they would not dispute the authenticity of the document. A spokesman for the White House, David Almacy, said that while he could not comment on its authenticity, it "was written eight months before the war began. There was significant postwar planning in the time that elapsed."

A British official in Washington said the British government never commented on internal documents made public in the press. But he said that "of course there was concern" in the government before the war about the need for "a full and consistent postconflict plan."

The publication of the memorandum is significant because a previously leaked document, now known as the Downing Street Memo, appeared to suggest that a decision to go to war may have been made that summer. In Washington last week, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair denied that they made any decision in 2002, and suggested that the memorandum was being misinterpreted.

"No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all," Mr. Blair said, adding that "no one knows more intimately the discussions that we were conducting as two countries at the time than me."

The White House has insisted that Mr. Bush did not make the decision to invade Iraq until after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented the administration's case about Iraqi weapons to the United Nations Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003. That presentation has been discredited in postwar investigations. The White House has also argued that by the time of the invasion it had a sophisticated plan for administering Iraq, even though that plan, as Mr. Bush himself has acknowledged, failed to anticipate a postwar insurgency.

While the latest memorandum appears to have been written by a British intelligence official after a visit to Washington, the central fact reported - that the American military was in the midst of advanced planning for an invasion of Iraq - was no secret. The New York Times published details of that plan two weeks before the memorandum was written.

Still, it is revealing about what was known - and assumed - at that time. After noting the risks of a lengthy postwar occupation, the memorandum says that "U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Further work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired endstate would be created, in particular what form of government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime and the timescale within which it would be possible to identify a successor."

On unconventional weapons, the memorandum also discloses doubts - but not that they existed.

"U.S. military planning unambiguously takes as its objective the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, followed by elimination of Iraqi W.M.D. It is however, by no means certain, in the view of U.K. officials, that one would necessarily follow from the other. Even if regime change is a necessary condition for controlling Iraqi W.M.D., it is certainly not a sufficient one."

Did we have a plan in place? Yes, we also have plans in place to invade Canada and England if necessary, this point is pretty well made I think. Does the DSM show us lying a war into existence? I don't believe so.

What this memo DOES point out is that we truly had no postwar plan in place to finish the job.



I find it odd that you put any credibility in this article.

[Pogo]

Is see the following:

Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

As gathering information and putting it in place in support of the policy.

This by no means supports, in my view, the radical declarations of some that the word "fixed" as used here means made up.

If the Intelligence was being fixed around the policy then how could there be even a shred of objectivity, and if there isn't any objectivity, of what value is the "Intelligence"? Wouldn't it be more honest to call it propaganda? I certainly think so.

And when the Administration goes on to blame their failures on bad Intelligence, how can this be anything other than lying, seeing as how they were the ones who "fixed" the Intelligence?

[BoogyMan]

Is see the following:

Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

As gathering information and putting it in place in support of the policy.

This by no means supports, in my view, the radical declarations of some that the word "fixed" as used here means made up.

If the Intelligence was being fixed around the policy then how could there be even a shred of objectivity, and if there isn't any objectivity, of what value is the "Intelligence"? Wouldn't it be more honest to call it propaganda? I certainly think so.

And when the Administration goes on to blame their failures on bad Intelligence, how can this be anything other than lying, seeing as how they were the ones who "fixed" the Intelligence?


As I stated above Pogo, I don't subscribe to the word "fixed" meaning made up. I believe that the memo simply shows that information gathering was being done in support of what was being seen as inevitable. Did you read the article I posted that pointed out that Blair didn't think that war was a certainty yet?

[Pogo]

As I stated above Pogo, I don't subscribe to the word "fixed" meaning made up. I believe that the memo simply shows that information gathering was being done in support of what was being seen as inevitable...
For the record, how exactly do you define "fixed" in this particular instance and what criteria do you employ to arrive at it?

[BoogyMan]

As I stated above Pogo, I don't subscribe to the word "fixed" meaning made up. I believe that the memo simply shows that information gathering was being done in support of what was being seen as inevitable...
For the record, how exactly do you define "fixed" in this particular instance and what criteria do you employ to arrive at it?


I am reading this as equating to "put into place," Pogo. I certainly don't think that it is out of the realm of possibility, and that belief is further bolstered by the article I posted previously.

[Pogo]

I am reading this as equating to "put into place," Pogo. I certainly don't think that it is out of the realm of possibility, and that belief is further bolstered by the article I posted previously.

Obviously there were choices to be made as to what to put and what not to put into place around the policy and I don't see how such a process leaves any room for objectivity.

If the Intelligence left no doubts as to Iraq having WMD, as Cheney stated, wouldn't that be referring to the Intelligence that had been cherrypicked by the administration, in which case Cheney is lying by omission?

I really don't see any room for plausible deniability, what with Cheney making trips to Langley and Rumsfeld setting up his own intelligence boutique, nor do I see how it can be argued that the Intelligence process wasn't subverted by this political interference. To my mind, it's the political interference that gave us what is now referred to as "flawed Intelligence": a one-sided picture that reflected only what the administration wanted to see.

[BoogyMan]

Yet, you have to admit Pogo that the article I posted takes a bit of the wind out of the sails of that line of argumentation.

I would imagine that you and I probably are not going to see eye to eye on this one, but I certainly appreciate your civil form of debate and your willingness to discuss this topic.

[Pogo]

Yet, you have to admit Pogo that the article I posted takes a bit of the wind out of the sails of that line of argumentation.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that a memorandum Issued by Blair's staff re a subject in which he is deeply involved can be seen as having the credibility of a memo that is unexpectedly made public?

Either the article you cite takes all of the wind out of the Downing Street memo or none of it, and I think you know perfectly well that it isn't the former. One or the other is correct but not both.

Furthermore, it seems to me that if we're both forming our opinions on the basis of reason then there should be considerable commonality, no? ;)