Page 1 of 2
Documentary support for O'Neill's and Clarke's assertions
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 2:00 am
by Arlos
Originally from The London Times on May 1 (can't search back that far without subscribing, and screw that), now on CNN. There is apparently a memo, that the British government acknowledges as being real, that corroborates O'Neill's and Clarke's assertions that the Bush administration planned on going to war in Iraq all along, and manipulated the intelligence to support their position.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/britai ... index.html
One of the more important excerpts:
After a July 2002 meeting in the US, before the case for war was submitted to congress wrote:A British official identified as "C" said that he had returned from a meeting in Washington and that "military action was now seen as inevitable" by U.S. officials.
"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.
-Arlos
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 3:19 am
by mofish
Tell me something I dont know, heh. This is real evidence at least, for those in denial. Can't wait to hear the spin on this one. Actually, there has been no spin. Article I just read said White House has not responded yet to a congressional query asking Bush to explain, which was received by White House on May 6th. Whats wrong George, cat got your tongue?
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 4:50 am
by Lyion
Its a a British Intel Memo, Arlos, that has no new facts. Even in your politically biased mindset I'd guess you could see it for what it is. It's no different than a Ted Kennedy speech saying the same thing.
But I guess since its from a Brit, its suddenly new 'facts', eh?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 07,00.html
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 9:50 am
by Gidan
The question is, why hasn't the white house responded? The longer it takes for them to respond the more it looks like they are trying to spin things abit because they have something to hide.
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 10:12 am
by veeneedefeesh
because they have something to hide
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 10:59 am
by Martrae
Maybe cuz Bush isn't/wasn't in the country and was dealing with other issues?
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 11:01 am
by Gidan
I hardly think all responces from the whitehouse come from bush's mouth. Any statment would work, the problem is they are being completely silent.
This also is not the dark ages. We have phones and all kinds of other nifty inventions that allow our president to talk to people in this country.
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 11:06 am
by Martrae
Yeah, I'm sure Bush has no input on stuff like that and he's really concerned with issuing a statement while he's doing visits to other countries.
No doubt it's low priority, as it should be.
Re: Documentary support for O'Neill's and Clarke's assertion
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 11:13 am
by Narrock
Arlos wrote:Originally from The London Times on May 1 (can't search back that far without subscribing, and screw that), now on CNN. There is apparently a memo, that the British government acknowledges as being real, that corroborates O'Neill's and Clarke's assertions that the Bush administration planned on going to war in Iraq all along, and manipulated the intelligence to support their position.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/britai ... index.htmlOne of the more important excerpts:
After a July 2002 meeting in the US, before the case for war was submitted to congress wrote:A British official identified as "C" said that he had returned from a meeting in Washington and that "military action was now seen as inevitable" by U.S. officials.
"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.
-Arlos
Now there's a reliable source
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 11:21 am
by Gidan
So who exactly do you consider a credable source? Those who say what you want to hear?
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 11:23 am
by Gidan
I dont know, if he is being accused of altering intel to create a war, he might want to respond to that.
What that mean is that he LIED to the country to start a war.
if its not true, he might want to say something or at the least have somone say something. By waiting on it, he is making it look like he really did it and is trying to find a way to cover it up.
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 11:29 am
by Tossica
We all know he lied, the entire world knows the war in Iraq was all based on lies, the problem is, none of his supporters seem to give a fuck.
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 11:40 am
by Agrajag
The U.S. has been trying to get Saddam out of power since 1991. Bush just had the balls to act on it.
I don't care that he or anyone else fabricated WMD or terrorism to get the job done. I just care that the job is done.
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 11:42 am
by Gidan
You shouldn't need to falsify intel to come up with a reason to goto war. If there wasn't already enough reason without falsifying intel, it shoudln't have happened period.
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 11:59 am
by Agrajag
Do you think that the average person even understands politics in this coutry, Gidan? Ask the people you are working with right now to name their Congressmen and watch the deer in headlights gaze quickly take over...
The average person doesn't give 2 shits about what happens that doesn't directly concern them. Why the hell would they support our troops going to Iraq? Oh! I know. Tell the US people there are possible WMD there and we are just going to clean that up. OMFG!1!! We caught Saddam while we were here! YAY US!!!
Then along come the loathsome Dems to try and make the Reps look bad.
Dems: OMG! There was no real proof! You guys lied to the country!
Reps: And?! We got Saddam and his heathen, right?
Dems: Yeah, but we're still telling on you.
Reps: Oh, well. We did what we thought was right and it worked.
Get the point yet?
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 12:18 pm
by Gidan
If you told the people, we are going to invade Iraq, We want to remove Saddam from power. I bet you would get about the same reaction that we got from the country when they were told of possible WMD's and such. Your right, the every day person knows next to nothing and really could care less when it comes to politics. They want to leave the decisions up to the politicians on things like this.
If Bush felt the country was justified in going to war, he should have just come out and said that. You would have had the same protests we had when we went to war. If he actually falisifed intel, that was wrong. He should not have to lie to acheive his goal if he truly beleives he is justified.
If for some reason the people disagreed with his justifiations, then maybe its time for him to look at them.
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 1:10 pm
by veeneedefeesh
And if Clinton thought that a blowjob was justified, then why did he deny it?
Personally I would have had a lot more respect for Clinton if he would have come out and said "Hey she offered, I accepted. And you know what? she sucks a mean cack" and I might have had a bit of respect for the Chimp in Chief if he would have said "This Saddam guy is bad news, we need to take him out of power" but niether one of them said that which merely reinforces that politicians are the lowest form of life.
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 1:19 pm
by Lyion
Hindsight is 20/20. We really won't know how successful this campaign is or the extent of what was what for many, many years.
No Intel was falsified. The view presented was our goals and the UKs goals were different based on our feelings of the threat and best means to resolve the Saddam situation.
The simple truth is this was an article about opinions that certain DNC people will try and spin for political gain. My guess is it'll backfire.
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 1:22 pm
by Tikker
Lyion wrote:Hindsight is 20/20. We really won't know how successful this campaign is or the extent of what was what for many, many years.
No Intel was falsified. The view presented was our goals and the UKs goals were different based on our feelings of the threat and best means to resolve the Saddam situation.
The simple truth is this was an article about opinions that certain DNC people will try and spin for political gain. My guess is it'll backfire.
So, you've swallowed the rebublican propaganda, hook, line and sinker I see
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 2:01 pm
by veeneedefeesh
Most sheeple have
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 2:05 pm
by Lyion
Its a shame so many politicize this issue and don't bother to read or comprehend the entirity of the issue. Those are the real sheeple, as you say.
I can't fault those in countries with extraordinarly biased propaganda news and limited choices by government controlled media, though.
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 2:08 pm
by Arlos
Uh, Lyion, it's documentary proof that British intelligence officials KNEW that the US government was fixing the intelligence to give them a case to go to war. It comes straight from British government officials who were meeting with the US government at the time.
Directly from that secret memo:
Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action ... But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
Proof there was no post-war plan wrote:There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action.
So, lets see, O'Neill and Clarke both said that the administration was twisting the intelligence around to justify a previously decided war on Iraq. Right-wingnuts trash their names and discount their statements, along with smearing their names. Now here we have a report for a meeting with the British Prime Minister, that was never intended to be made public, that PROVES that the British knew all along that the US was inventing reasons to go to a war that they'd already decided on. How much more proof do you NEED before you'll accept the fact that the government lied from day 1, and were following the advice of the PNAC people, like Cheney and Wolfowitz?
Oh, and Mindia: Are you calling The London Times an unreliable source? It's only, what, the single most respected newspaper in the entire world? Oh yeah, good luck convincing people that it's a hack tabloid.
-Arlos
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 2:26 pm
by Lyion
Arlos wrote:Uh, Lyion, it's documentary proof that British intelligence officials KNEW that the US government was fixing the intelligence to give them a case to go to war. It comes straight from British government officials who were meeting with the US government at the time.
Prove it. One internal memo from a Brit that says we had different opinions is hardly fixing Intel for war.
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 2:29 pm
by Zanchief
Lyion wrote:Its a shame so many politicize this issue and don't bother to read or comprehend the entirity of the issue. Those are the real sheeple, as you say.
I can't fault those in countries with extraordinarly biased propaganda news and limited choices by government controlled media, though.
BEEEEEEEEEH!
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 2:31 pm
by Darcler
hehe sheeple