FreePress Blog

Basically even the washington post is disputing this memo as ” proof ” of anything, that certain leaning media are projecting their own bent and distorting the facts —
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/10/AR2005061001705.html?referrer=emailarticle
from the above Washington Post article by M. Kinsey,

So, cheers for the Downing Street Memo. But what does it say? It’s a report on a meeting of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and some aides on July 23, 2002. The key passage summarizes “recent talks in Washington” by the head of British foreign intelligence (identified, John Le Carre-style, simply as “C”). C reported that “Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. . . . There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.”

C’s focus on the dog that didn’t bark — the lack of discussion about the aftermath of war — was smart and prescient. But even on its face, the memo is not proof that Bush had decided on war. It says that war is “now seen as inevitable” by “Washington.” That is, people other than Bush had concluded, based on observation, that he was determined to go to war. There is no claim of even fourth-hand knowledge that he had actually declared this intention. Even if “Washington” meant actual administration decision makers, rather than the usual freelance chatterboxes, C is saying only that these people believe that war is how events will play out.

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. And we know now that this was true and a half. Fixing intelligence and facts to fit a desired policy is the Bush II governing style, especially concerning the war in Iraq. But C offered no specifics, or none that made it into the memo. Nor does the memo assert that actual decision makers had told him they were fixing the facts. Although the prose is not exactly crystalline, it seems to be saying only that “Washington” had reached that conclusion.

And of course Washington had done so. You don’t need a secret memo to know this. Just look at what was in the newspapers on July 23, 2002, and the day before. Left-wing Los Angeles Times columnist Robert Scheer casually referred to the coming war against Iraq as “much-planned-for.” The New York Times reported Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s response to an earlier story “which reported preliminary planning on ways the United States might attack Iraq to topple President Saddam Hussein.”

So you would say that this best information at the time quote is a lie? - “Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States homeland.”

So Kerry lied when he stated this.

Why would he lie?

“Kerry told the Senate in October 2002, before voting to authorize Bush to invade Iraq, that “Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States homeland.”

In the same speech, Kerry even criticized Bush for not invading Iraq earlier, immediately after September 11.

Are we really to believe that Kerry and the Democrats were duped by the Bush Administration’s lies? Kerry answered this question when he declared that he would have voted to authorize Bush’s invasion even if he had known all he does now about Saddam’s lack of WMDs and ties to Al Qaeda (New York Times, 8/09/04). “

IT was actually Clinton who first promoted ” regime change in Irag…

” In the 1990s, Democratic President Bill Clinton periodically launched bombing raids on Iraq and enforced the murderous economic sanctions that killed over a million Iraqis.

It was the Clinton administration that made “regime change” in Iraq official U.S. policy under the 1998 “Iraq Liberation Act” - voted for by Kerry and even Dennis Kucinich. This act was later used by the Bush administration to help justify the invasion.

Clinton also carried out the brutal war on Yugoslavia and pushed through the $1.3 billion “Plan Colombia” aid package to the Colombian military. He also killed hundreds of innocent people when he bombed Sudan and Afghanistan to divert attention away from his impeachment crisis. ”
from a socialist newsletter

Dave, talk about scapegoating…

This post is about the Bush administration. YOU are the one who keeps trying to change the subject to other people (first Kerry, now Clinton).

Just to make it crystal clear: I’m not talking about Kerry or Clinton. If you want to say they’re both liars, I agree with you, so let’s get that out of the way and address the point of the post.

You’re welcome. Now it’s your turn to admit that the Bush administration has lied, in light of all the evidence out there.

There’s nothing more to “look into”, and you don’t have to blindly accept what any media organization says about it.

Based solely on the administrations own words, they have lied.

Saying that they “have evidence that leaves no doubt” and then later admitting that they were not only wrong, but deliberately ignored contradictory evidence IS admitting that the first statement was a lie.

If I say that I have “evidence that leaves no doubt” that you killed someone last night, and then it turns out you didn’t, my statement was a lie; it’s as plain as that, because I didn’t say that “I thought you did it”, I claimed to have evidence that leaves no doubt, which obviously could not be true if you didn’t do it. GET IT???

Also, I’m glad we both feel that the war should be stopped as soon as possible, but that doesn’t mean that the people who started it illegally should not be held accountable for their lies that have cost so many lives.

As I said before, this memo in and of itself does not amount to proof by any stretch of the imagination, but it is added to (and serves to confirm) the mountain of other evidence that points towards the truth in this matter.

If I told you that I have “evidence that leaves no doubt” that Vons has Coke Zero today (and are threatening to spill it on you), and you go there and not only find none but also do exhaustive studies that prove that they haven’t had it for 10 years, then, yes, that would be a lie.

It would be an especially bad lie if you started a war over it and killed tens of thousands of people.

Dan, your comment is so ” dial up “.

( only joking, please no cows or bulls or ligers )

No.

I find your view in the first paragraph. I find my view in the second paragraph.

From a CSM June 21,2005 article dealing with these memos:
” Critics say this is a smoking gun, proving that the administration was simply pretending that war might be forestalled during the months prior to the actual invasion, and that it knowingly corrupted intelligence reports to back a policy that was foreordained.

Others have a different reading of this passage. The memo does not say specifically that Mr. Bush, or indeed any US official, saw war as inevitable. And at the time, the media was rife with commentary that war was most likely coming. If seen in that general sense, the conclusion was unsurprising. “

Wrong on both comments.

The first: I’ve stated numerous times in this discussion that I don’t see this as proof, only corroborating evidence. Not reading my comments before replying again?

The second: I do take an objective view of this issue. I consider all the sources that are available, whereas you routinely dismiss any sources that don’t agree with your predetermined position as having some kind of “liberal slant”, even though you’re apparently fine with believing sources that slant the other way.

I ask again that you (objectively) tell me how the statement “we have evidence that leaves no doubt” could not be a lie, when they themselves (not “the media”) have acknowledged that it was incorrect.

And don’t even think about saying it was a misunderstanding / overstatement; when the president says something like this in a speech, there is a whole staff of people that go over every word with a fine-toothed comb, so this LIE was no slip of the tongue or uninformed passing comment. It was a deliberate statement, which (according to the evidence we now have) they knew to be untrue at the time (or at least unreliable - thus the “leaves no doubt” part IS A LIE).

This has absolutely nothing to do with media slant; as I’ve said before - the lie is proven even by the administration’s own words.

As I’ve said before, it’s not an issue of whether he honestly believed inaccurate information.

When you say “we have evidence that leaves no doubt” (especially about something as important as this), you either have the indisputable, concrete evidence that you claim to have or you do not. Making the statement in that way (using those words) makes it black and white.

If you do not have it, then the statement is a LIE, because you are not saying “we believe …” or even “we think, based on our best information…” (which they did say, but was also a lie), but when you say “we have evidence that leaves no doubt” and you do not have such evidence (which they didn’t - and have admitted to), it’s a lie.

Come on Dave, even they’ve admitted it, why can’t you?

It’s also not a “misspeak”, as I pointed out before - it was part of a carefully worded (and thoroughly reviewed) speech making the case for war.

It’s a miracle! I guess I have to take back what I said before about you not being able to admit it…

Since everything I said was based on their own words, then it is the case, and you’ve admitted that the administration lied to justify this war. You’re on the right track!

Wow, hell frosted up.

I think a bigger issue is that people write Bush’s speaches and go through them with a fine comb but he still says what he says.

Dave: If the media is so slanted why did they cover the Lewinsky scandel and Clinton’s blatent lie more then the Bush/GOVERNMENT lies to start a war?

Dan: in case you haven’t noticed, covering negative stories about “right wing” people is “liberal slant”, covering negative stories about “left wing” people is applauded as responsible journalism. Classic Orwellian “news-speak”.

After all, who wouldn’t think that a lie about a blow-job is an impeachable offense, but a lie that leads to an unjust and illegal war where tens of thousands die is not?

What Dave is really trying to say is that he can’t come up with anything that disputes the facts I’ve laid out, so he’s giving up, but still not admitting that the administration is wrong. Don’t spend to much time trying to make sense of it.

You need to look up frosted or frost and compare it to freezing or froze.

Dave: classic dodging the point and trying to attack “libs” or “dems” when a point is made that you can’t respond to.

I think that news about a war we are involved in right now may be a little more important than a documentary about what happened with Kennedy (not that it isn’t important), and it doesn’t have anything to do with the political party affiliation of the administration that is waging the illegal war.

I agree with you about same standards. I’m fine with the press bagging on Clinton about his improprieties, YOU are the one that seems to have a problem with the tables being turned.

Re: “criminality” - our invasion and occupation of Iraq is illegal under international law. I’m sure you will respond to this by saying that you don’t respect international law, but then how can we claim to enforce it while ignoring it’s applicability to ourselves?

I have proven that the statement in question was a lie, using nothing but their own words, yet you still refuse to admit it, so to me that shows that your mind is completely closed on this issue.

If it’s not, then I’ll ask you again to explain how it’s not a lie. Remember that the exact words of the statement were carefully planned and scripted, and therefore not a mistake, and also the fact that if he just mistakenly but honestly “believed” the WMD story and didn’t have “evidence that leaves no doubt” then that statement is still a lie.

By the way that was a joke.

Dave: that was an extremely good rebuttal except the media slant would have crucified anyone that didn’t vote for the war.

Would you like at the friendly starbucks one morning?

I cant write anymore.. would you like to meet at SBs?

this could go over 50 comments with nate weighing in.
I’m out for real.

I meant I cant write as in making mistakes in the typing.

Would you like to meet at Jamba Juice?

I’ve answered your questions and offered now twice to meet/discuss which you have refused. A verbal conversation would be friendlier I think as I dont see any differences in what you mentioned.
You can keep asking over and over thinking you have ” won ” something if you want to.

You should meet and record it. It would be your first pod-cast.

Dave, this is getting old. I’ve said it many times in this post alone. This is the last time I’ll repeat it.

Fact #1: He said “we have evidence that leaves no doubt” that Iraq currently had and planned to use WMDs.

Fact #2: Such evidence never existed, and could not have, since it wasn’t true. This has been proven by many sources, and even THE ADMINISTRATION THEMSELVES ADMITS IT!

Given #2, the statement in #1 is indisputably a LIE, since they did not have the evidence they claimed to have.

Simple enough?

I have admitted that they may have had some evidence (obviously false), but that does not constitute “evidence that leaves no doubt”. By the way, where is all the evidence that we were told back then could not be disclosed, that had to be kept under wraps to protect sources, etc.?

Maybe I’m not presenting it clearly enough. Here’s a quote from the above referenced article:

Similarly, look at what Bush said in the March 2003 speech to the nation, which Rosenbaum uses as an example to exonerate Bush of lying. As Rosenbaum quotes him, Bush said in March 17, 2003 that “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” Yet by the time Bush made that statement, the Niger nuclear materials story that Powell regrettably used the previous month at the UN had been fully debunked by the CIA and British Intelligence, in some cases a year before Bush made the statement. And whatever new information that Bush was relying upon was cast into doubt by the IAEA as well as CIA and British intelligence reports that were less than definitive. Yet Bush said the intelligence “leaves no doubt.â€? In fact, the intelligence left much in doubt, but Bush asserted the opposite.

Where I come from, that is a lie. But not to Mr. Rosenbaum. Why is someone’s belief about what constitutes sex a lie, when what someone said contrary to the documented intelligence concerns of two separate intelligence agencies not a lie?

“I have admitted that they may have had some evidence (obviously false), but that does not constitute “evidence that leaves no doubtâ€?.

Your entire deal is hinged on that and there is doubt that bush and his admin. did not know it was false at the time presented.

that isnt proof that isn’t just a question of poor symantics on their part.
your argument is way thin, now I must not write here any longer, and I will read what you say and meet if you ever want to

http://www.moveon.org/false/video/

Dan you are so late to this party. My last comment was 6 24 05.
better late than never.

I pinged this post from my own site so it’s new.

Just go here.

I can call them freaks, but I don’t automatically dismiss whatever they say just because they said it; I will listen and evaluate it in light of other evidence, etc. If someone quotes something they say which I don’t agree with, I will explain why I disagree with it, not just write it off because it comes from a biased source.

I’m referring to the numerous occasions on which I’ve referenced factual information in a discussion, and you automatically dismiss it if it comes from any so-called “liberal” paper, etc., which leads me to believe that the only sources you will listen to are those that already agree with your position.

In fact, even in this thread, where I was carefully to use only sources that you’ve already acknowledged as ones you respect (namely the administration themselves) you still won’t acknowledge that they lied, so my suspicion that your mind is closed on this issue is confirmed.

Not trying to take cheap shots, just commenting on our discussions so far.

I’m talking about the conversations we’ve had; and you’ll find that I never mentioned a quote or excerpt from any of Moore’s movies as a reference to my points.