Documentary support for O'Neill's and Clarke's assertions

[Arlos]

Well, lets see, O'Neill said it. Clarke said it. And did you miss the very first line I quoted, where the Brit says it? Other parts of the memo talked about differing opinions, but SOME parts of the memo DO discuss the fact that the US was, and again I quote, "Intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Again, the US government had the policy first, and then fixed intelligence and facts around it. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

Also, are you denying Cheney and Wolfowitz's role as part of PNAC, where they advocated a pre-emptive war with Iraq? Go look at the PNAC website, their name's on it. (along with that true mensa-intellect, Dan Quayle)

So, lets see. We have senior administration officials, including the VP, who for years had been calling for the US to go out and conquer Iraq, regardless of legality. They get into power, and then lo and behold, here we are going to war with Iraq, based on lies, as reported now from 3 seperate sources, one of which at least had no reason to lie about it, because it was supposed to never get disseminated to the public at large. So what, you expect people to just shrug and say "Who cares?" I think not.

-Arlos

[Lyion]

we wanted the Security Council measures enforced and there was a worldwide fear and agreement that Saddam had WMDs. Are you saying nobody believed he had WMDs, or the capacity to use them?

Talking about the desire for a pre emptive war aimed at a regime that has and could use WMDs is vastly different than a claim they cooked intel to start the war.

Again, there is no proof that Intel was 'fixed', and you are bringing a straw man argument here in regards to the what really was the case with the Intel.

I expect people to rationally look at the facts, and not try and distort the truth, although its clear partisan politics always is at work in DC.

[Zanchief]

they cooked intel to start the war.

I agree

[veeneedefeesh]

The point is here tho that certain individuals manipulated intel, falsified documents, pressured various agencies and outright lied to the American public in order justify invading a country. If there had been even one WMD that was found in the last 3 years, then maybe you could say it was justified, but there hasnt been one, not a single one found in three years. Dont you think if they had WMD's they would have used them by now? Now you will certainly counter with "Yea but Saddam was a bastard and needed to be taken out of power" and to a degree you are right, (altho if they had said that in the beginning there I doubt seriously that the administration would have recieved the carte blanche that they got when they said "IF WE DONT GO GIT EYE-RACK SADDAMNS GOONA GIT SOME NUKES")
Is not the leader of Syria just a big of a bastard?
isnt the N. Korean guy just as dangerous and he has outright admited that he has a nuclear program and will continue to develop it regardless of what the UN or anyone else has to say about it (hello ultimate WMD)
why was Saddam more of a threat than these others?
Why should the USA be the enforcement arm for the world? (lemme guess, cus we can) and even if there was a valid reason for the US to be the enforcement arm of the world (and there isnt) why did we single out one country as being dangerous and ignore all the others?
Why have we not concentrated on finding the man that was REALLY responsible for 9-11-01?
Why are the majority of our troops in Iraq and not out scouring the planet for Bin Laden?
Why have we found and detained Saddam and not Bin Laden? What exactly is the connection between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family?
Why did Haliburton get those contracts without a bid process?
Why are we repeatedly given proof that Haliburton and its subsidiaries are overcharging for their services and yet they are still providing those services and at an over-inflated fee?
Is it coincidence that Dick Cheny was a Haliburton VP for many years?
Is it also a coicidence that the Bush family is heavily invested in oil and are snuggle buddies with half the Saudi royal family (were there any Iraqi's on any of the planes on 9-11-01?, no they were all Saudi)
Why are we showed time and time again that the intel was forced and/or falsified and yet no one has said anything about any repercussions to Bush for lieing to the public to justify going to war, yet Clinton lied about getting a freaking blowjob and the whole country wants to string him up by the balls?

No Lyion this is not policizing the issue it is a demand for honest answers and not just "cuz our wonderful leader said so, yeehaw lets keel us some fuggin ragheads....pass me a beer"

Now you can call me a Michael Moore sympathizer or whatever, but as long as you can't give real, valid, and honest answers to those questions then I'm sorry but I will term you and your ilk sheeple. You have either been duped, or you think that might makes right and you shouldnt have to justify sending your fellow countrymen off to fight and die on foriegn soil for the cause of personal gain of a man who you don't even know.

[Arlos]

OK, I don't know how this can be any clearer.

O'Neill said that Intelligence was fixed to fit a pre-determined policy.

Clarke said that Intelligence was fixed to fit a pre-determined policy.

A British Policy Analyst, in a memo that only the British Prime Minister and senior officials were ever intended to see, said "Intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

How is that in *ANY* way a straw man argument? 3 seperate sources saying EXACTLY the same goddamn thing, that the policy was decided apart from the intelligence and that the facts and intel were spun to fit the pre-decided policy. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

Even if you want to discredit O'Neill and Clarke as lying out of some sort of vendetta, what POSSIBLE motive would that British official have for lying to his own Prime Minister in a top secret, eyes-only document about it?

Thus, we have 3 seperate accounts of the administration lying by fixing the intel and facts to fit the policy. 2 of them by people who were former senior members of the administration, who had access to such knowledge, and 1, a piece of documentary evidence from a completely seperate 3rd source, with no possible potential agenda of discrediting the US government, that absolutely corroborates what the first 2 were saying.

I'd say it's a slam fucking dunk, and I am TRULY interested to hear your logical point-by-point argument as to how it is a unrelated and straw-man argument.

-Arlos

[Lyion]

This is a straw man argument because of the blatant mischaracterization of what the facts of the reports are.

The Intel may have been WRONG, but it was NOT FIXED. You saying it was is not at all accurate.

When I get more time I'll break down the individual reports for you, in depth.

[Martrae]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 07,00.html

Actual memo for those interested.

Do none of you when reporting on a meeting put your own thoughts and interpretations on things? I know I used to. What you have here is someone reporting his interpretation of his meeting...not necessarily what anyone said to him or even implied. He very easily could have disagreed with US intel and therefore in his mind data was being 'fixed' to suit the need for war. It even sounds as if there was a disagreement with the NSC that has colored his perceptions.

[Gidan]

When you put your own thoughts and interpertations on things into a meeting did you represent them as fact?

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. 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. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

This doesn't come off as he didn't agree with the intell. It does appear as though there was a disagreement with the NSC, but more like he was just reporting on what was being said and not his opionion on the matter.

I dont know about you but if I am reporting to the CEO or COO of my company about a meeting, I dont put my opinion or interpretations into it. I tell them what happened. Its for them to decide what they think people meant. I dont see this guy putting opinion and interpretation into a report of a metting at that level. Looked to me like a sumerization of the meeting and thats all.

[Martrae]

Take the recent thread from Kizzy about networking. You (and I) read it as her wanting to install the program thru the network from the DVD player. Darcler on the other hand saw it as Kizzy wanting to pull the actual installed program straight over. It was all a matter of interpretation.

Exact same thing happens in meetings and general conversations. You could say "I'm putting in info here about John not working out in his area". And I could hear that as "I really want to fire John" when all you really wanted was for John to be transferred or given additional training.

[Lyion]

When you put your own thoughts and interpertations on things into a meeting did you represent them as fact?

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. 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. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

I dont know about you but if I am reporting to the CEO or COO of my company about a meeting, I dont put my opinion or interpretations into it. I tell them what happened. Its for them to decide what they think people meant. I dont see this guy putting opinion and interpretation into a report of a metting at that level. Looked to me like a sumerization of the meeting and thats all.

Do you give assessments based on meetiings? Thats really all this is.

This is one persons ASSESSMENT of what was going on, and not even an insider in our Government, or someone with access to our real information.

Despite the spin that biased political agents put on it, this is proof of nothing and really doesn't give us any new insight. It's no wonder so few real media entities are actually covering it.

Show me anything in that paragraph that we didnt already know.

[veeneedefeesh]

No we all knew that W was looking for a reason to invade Iraq, there is nothing to see here, move along