Bush committed to tracking al-Qaida

[SteveLaura 0]

If that were the case, you would expect the UK government to denounce it as such, no?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Yes, Marc, I read that. It's email correspondence discussing ways to sell the war. The memo, however, are minutes of a meeting. These are facts, not opinion as you suggested.

Where in the hec does it mention in the memo "how to sell the war" they are discussing wheather Saddam will use his WMD and how agressive will he be.

Somehow, putting your opinion between the lines of what was being discussed in the 9/11/02 memo shows your bias.

[SteveLaura 0]

It's email correspondence. The subject is "Dossier" - discussing what became known as 'the dodgy dossier' that Blair submitted to Parliament to convince MPs and the public that they needed to go to war.

The emails state how they intend to 'sex it up'. "But can we show why we think he intends to use them agressively, rather than in self-defence? We need that to counter the argument that Saddam is bad, but not mad. We also, I think, need more direct argument on why containment is breaking down. In other words, putting the emphasis as much (maybe more) on the present and the future, as the past. The key must be to show that Saddam has the capacity, and is intent on using it in ways that threaten the world stability, and that our ability to stop him is increasingly threatened."

"Part of the answer to 'why now?' is that the threat will only get worse if we don't act now."

They are devising strategies to make the case stronger.

Again, these are just musings and not facts. The Downing Street memo, however, are minutes of a meeting.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again, these are just musings and not facts. The Downing Street memo, however, are minutes of a meeting.

That's the point.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

It's email correspondence. The subject is "Dossier" - discussing what became known as 'the dodgy dossier' that Blair submitted to Parliament to convince MPs and the public that they needed to go to war.

The emails state how they intend to 'sex it up'. "But can we show why we think he intends to use them agressively, rather than in self-defence? We need that to counter the argument that Saddam is bad, but not mad. We also, I think, need more direct argument on why containment is breaking down. In other words, putting the emphasis as much (maybe more) on the present and the future, as the past. The key must be to show that Saddam has the capacity, and is intent on using it in ways that threaten the world stability, and that our ability to stop him is increasingly threatened."

"Part of the answer to 'why now?' is that the threat will only get worse if we don't act now."

They are devising strategies to make the case stronger.

Again, these are just musings and not facts. The Downing Street memo, however, are minutes of a meeting.

Why would anybody need to "sex it up" Saddam already had showed what he was willing to do. Kurds being gassed, his willingness to march into Kuwait, just to name a few.

Putting all your eggs into minutes from a meeting is just as vulnerable for abuse (editing,misquoting,bias,opinion)

A good freind of mine spent a year in Iraq. He told me that one of the missions he was sent out on was to investigate a huge warehouse outside Baghdad. After securing the area they went inside and found everthing from shovels and chainsaws to silverware. They also found pallots of 55 gallon drums of chemicals segragated by color. They radioed in what they had found and were told to wait there for an investigative team. Later that day they were told if the chemicals they had found were mixed, would form a deadly gas. Because the chemicals had not been mixed are technically not a weapon. My buddy needless to say was very pissed off.

[SteveLaura 0]

Also look at the list of personnel that are in this email discussion:

Tom Kelly: Official Spokesman to the PM

Godric Smith: Official Spokesman to the PM

Daniel Pruce: Press Office

Alastair Campbell: Director of Communications & Strategy

Philip Bassett: Special Adviser to Alastair Campbell

These aren't Foreign Policy wonks. They're spin doctors.

Edited August 7, 2007 by SteveLaura

[SteveLaura 0]

Why would anybody need to "sex it up" Saddam already had showed what he was willing to do. Kurds being gassed, his willingness to march into Kuwait, just to name a few.

Whoever edited the dossier, (Alastair Campbell is suggested), he removed any caveats that the Intelligence Services had carefully placed in there regarding Saddam's capabilities. This was with the purpose, it is logically assumed, to make the case stronger than it was. Why? Because, as the memo shows, the decision had already been made to go to war.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Also look at the list of personnel that are in this email discussion:

Tom Kelly: Official Spokesman to the PM

Godric Smith: Official Spokesman to the PM

Daniel Pruce: Press Office

Alastair Campbell: Director of Communications & Strategy

Philip Bassett: Special Adviser to Alastair Campbell

These aren't Foreign Policy wonks. They're spin doctors.

Your inability to accept the fact that everything in this debate is subject to question. To beleive in a document so fervantly as though it was the holy grail, without question, is amazing to me. You hate Bush and the memo you sooo love gives you reason and justification for your emotions towards him.

[SteveLaura 0]

Marc, it seems you're arguing that these are government employees who are discussing how bad Saddam is, just for the hell of it. But, as your email states, they are specifically discussing the Dossier which was due to be released. And, as I pointed out, these are not Foreign Policy employees. They're spin doctors.

Look, regardless of how one feels about Bush or Blair (as was), the memo and, yes, even your email show that "fixing the intelligence" around the policy to get the public on board was a high priority to these people. That should be something that everyone should be railing against, surely.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The fact that the case to go to war in Iraq was build on lies and deception on both sides of the Atlantic is not really up for debate anymore. Too much evidence has surfaced. One of my favorites for this side of the Atlantic remains how Bush trusted the word of AQ operative Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi over the evaluation of the DIA. The former made his case for war stronger, the latter made it weaker. Hence, he went with what the enemy said rather than what our military intelligence had to offer.

Edited August 7, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Marc, it seems you're arguing that these are government employees who are discussing how bad Saddam is, just for the hell of it. But, as your email states, they are specifically discussing the Dossier which was due to be released. And, as I pointed out, these are not Foreign Policy employees. They're spin doctors.

Look, regardless of how one feels about Bush or Blair (as was), the memo and, yes, even your email show that "fixing the intelligence" around the policy to get the public on board was a high priority to these people. That should be something that everyone should be railing against, surely.

I understand the "downing street memo" is your rock. It too can be spun.Your avoidance in recognising this is known as denial.

off to work. S&L its been a pleasure talkin to you.

[SteveLaura 0]

With respect, Marc, you've said a lot without actually addressing the issues.

The minutes were leaked. They were not supposed to be seen. Are private minutes usually spun? Or has the spin happened since? If so, how exactly? What does "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" mean to you?

Does Tony Snow get to make policy? Would he have email discussions with his peers on how best to publicise certain issues?

Enjoy your work.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

With respect, Marc, you've said a lot without actually addressing the issues.

The minutes were leaked. They were not supposed to be seen. Are private minutes usually spun? Or has the spin happened since? If so, how exactly? What does "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" mean to you?

Does Tony Snow get to make policy? Would he have email discussions with his peers on how best to publicise certain issues?

Enjoy your work.

The UK govt didn't deny them either.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Marc, it seems you're arguing that these are government employees who are discussing how bad Saddam is, just for the hell of it. But, as your email states, they are specifically discussing the Dossier which was due to be released. And, as I pointed out, these are not Foreign Policy employees. They're spin doctors.

Look, regardless of how one feels about Bush or Blair (as was), the memo and, yes, even your email show that "fixing the intelligence" around the policy to get the public on board was a high priority to these people. That should be something that everyone should be railing against, surely.

I understand the "downing street memo" is your rock. It too can be spun.Your avoidance in recognising this is known as denial.

off to work. S&L its been a pleasure talkin to you.

It clearly shows that a key intelligence chief (the Director of MI6), and the UK Foreign Secretary were of the opinion that (i) the war was being prosecuted regardless of any compliance by Saddam; and (ii) The intelligence and facts were being fixed around a pre-determined policy.

Spin it all you want - those are the facts in black and white. Quoted statements from the people directly involved - statements which have not been disavowed.

That throws subsequent developments in sharp relief - that two intelligence dossiers were published by the UK government - one which was plagiarised from a university doctoral thesis (the author actually came forward and was interviewed on the news), and another that was presented to the UN and included several explicit claims - (i) that the UK government had learned that Saddam had tried to buy Uranium from Nigeria (this claim was later debunked; and that (ii) that "Saddam Hussein could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes of an order to use them" which was included out of context, and given undue prominence.

[Heracles 417]

Spin it all you want - those are the facts in black and white. Quoted statements from the people directly involved - statements which have not been disavowed.

What do you recommend should have been after Sept 11 to capture Al-Qaida?

It is basically guerrilla warfare there; which can last for years and years. It is too easy to condemn someone and their actions while kicking back in the comfort of your home. I would like to see liberals put their ### on the line instead of just whining about anything somebody does. Yet at the same time turn a complete blind eye to the Democrat who was in office prior to Sept 11. That is, during the period the attacks where being planned...

Edited August 8, 2007 by Boo-Yah!