Downing Street Memo
moultano
Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
in Discussions
Comments
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->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. Fixing intelligence and facts to fit a desired policy is the Bush II governing style, especially concerning the Iraq war.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
QFT.
All I see in the attached editorials is rationalization for hate without substance.
As for the Washington Democrats, don't buy into their cat calls. They're just busy trying to dent Bush's armor. Which is strange considering neither he, nor Cheney, will be running next term. Unless you consider his overall approval as a signal for passing other policies.
Otherwise, I see this as fringe outrage. It's no secret that the extreme Left is generating an emboldened set of marching orders. It's funny really. I'd say there is more substantial outrage from Conservatives over border policies, spending excesses, and spineless waivering on judicial nominations than the Left could ever conjure with war memos. Anyway, good luck to em. They're gonna need it.
I don't think that they're lazy, and not so much ignorance. I live in two red states (red states are states that will vote conservative no matter what) and I think I have the general gist of what most around here vote on.
(Very large generalization coming up here, but it's based on what I see around me)
For most of the conservative voters in my area they are more than likely older than 35, and more than likely devout faithbased people. So the way they look at politics is which canidate tells me that he has the same stance on abortion or other topics that my church tells me I should be against. They harp on pro-life issues even though Bush has been in office for 5 years now and we all know that he donned armor and slayed the Roe V Wade descision like it was a dragon. The fact that no administration has and more than likely never will overtrun Roe v Wade makes the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice stance a null-issue in my book but that seems to matter little. That's about all they base their decision on, in fact last November coming out of church the priest suggested that everyone pick up a "Faith Educated Voter" phamplet. I picked it up for a laugh and to their credit they really really tried to be non-partizan. It just listed the issues that the church had a negative stance on: abortion, cloning, stem cell research, etc. But since both parties are pretty much polarized on these issues take a guess which side the phamplet indirectly points to.
So now we go onto but wait we never found WMD's, some administration officials bullied some intelligence agenicies into making the case against Iraq linked to terrorism, and any other thing that even though has good basis been more or less ignored. You would think that someone would weigh that in their minds when voting. Well you'd be wrong. Once again last November all the Red States made a huge turnout and voted Bush back in.
But wait one might say, Nixon resigned because of lies during the watergate scandal, and Clinton was brought before an impeachment trail because he lied about his own personal extra marital affairs that had NOTHING at all to do with his ability to govern, surely those are much more malicious and hanous crimes against the nation and the world. I mean it's not like they <i>only</i> snubbed their noses at a large number of their own populus and not to mention a vast international outcry with a well constructed story based on flim-flam and guile. No Nixon and Clinton were truly bad people and why on earth did they ever get elected, I'm so gald that we have a moral and god loving (not to mention god appointed in some eyes) president who can stand up for the issues that I care about because my church gives me the moral authority to say so. God bless America.
Unfortunetly, seperation of church and state doesn't apply to the populace the state is charged to protect and serve. Thus, it is possible for the populace to elect someone on the point of their faith and not on the facts that lay before their very eyes... And - not ironically - their choice will be their reaper.
A good example is the pyroclastic flow that turned Pompei (spelling? damn greek names are so hard to spell) into a city of stone statues. Most people, despite the fact that their death was imminent if they did not run stayed and prayed to their gods. Of course, we have the luxury of pointing our fingers and laughing at them.
1) To say they did
2) So that the alternative doesn't win
For example, I think that many conservatives DON'T blindly follow bush or the Republican party. Perhaps, they just don't like the alternative democrats for whatever reason. Doesn't mean they are ignorant, lazy or anything else, they just feel voting for their only alternative would be a waste of time. I did the same, now that I think of it. We have, in New Zealand, and extremely ineffective and almost toothless right wing (Except for Winston Peters and Rodney Hyde. So I voted on the left (our 'red' party) namely for Labour. I did so because:
1) They showed common sense about genetic engineering, rather than listening to the blithering over-reactionary morons in the Greens.
2) They openly stated they didn't like the Green party (who I don't like either)
3) They haven't done too shoddy a job running the country (good economy)
Overall I voted for them but do regret doing so, even if they did stick to what they said they would do. Then again, a national (the other party really) government really wouldn't be that much better. In the coming election I'll probably vote labour again. Simply because they dislike all the left parties (ironically) that I dislike and the fact that the opposition doesn't seem to have any teeth (again). Nothing to do with being stupid, lazy or anything else. I just feel the opposition isn't worth the gamble or my vote.
Not exactly true.
Clinton was brought up for impeachment not because he lied (All politicians lie, you just kind of expect it), but because he committed perjury by lying <i>under oath</i> to the Senate. I can't remember now why he was under oath to begin with, but he was.
Nixon's lies were intended to cover up a separate crime--misuse of the FBI to spy on the democratic party. It was the spying (including the Watergate Break-In) that brought him close to impeachment, not the lies afterwards. They were merely tangential to the matter.
Note that in both cases, the President came close to being legally removed because of illegal misconduct, not just because he did something malicious and/or immoral--being malicious and immoral is (sadly) completely legal.
Now, I am not ready to admit yet that Bush <i>was</i> either malicious or immoral in his pursuit of war on Iraq--but EVEN IF you prove it, that is not grounds for removing him from office. You have to find something he did that was actually <i>illegal</i>.
<!--QuoteBegin-Downing Street Memo+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Downing Street Memo)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As Spooge already pointed out, doesn't this go towards proving that they really believed Saddam had WMD? If they knew he didn't and were just inventing stories, they wouldn't bother discussing what would happen if he actually <i>used</i> his WMDs. The intelligence on Iraqi WMDs was mistaken, but it was real--not lies.
But what really can the average person do right now? I voted (not for bush), I try to keep up on current events and I try to tell other people what I know. Its kind of hard to talk to some people though because If you say something they dont agree with, your one of the "sheep" or a bushite. Ppl are so combative about the the war in iraq and similar issues that nobody wants to talk about it.
I thought that a system with a senate and a president was a republic (yes, I'm being an ****, haw haw, Republics get extra commerce per road tile, TAKE THAT MONARCHY)
All I see in the attached editorials is rationalization for hate without substance.
As for the Washington Democrats, don't buy into their cat calls. They're just busy trying to dent Bush's armor. Which is strange considering neither he, nor Cheney, will be running next term. Unless you consider his overall approval as a signal for passing other policies.
Otherwise, I see this as fringe outrage. It's no secret that the extreme Left is generating an emboldened set of marching orders. It's funny really. I'd say there is more substantial outrage from Conservatives over border policies, spending excesses, and spineless waivering on judicial nominations than the Left could ever conjure with war memos. Anyway, good luck to em. They're gonna need it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did you read the article?
The issue is that the memo states that the evidence for war was shaky, and that US intelligence was being "fixed around the policy," which if true is very very impeachable.
How is a foreign oppinion (most likely biased and anti-war) in another goverment evidence that the US was framing the evidence to fit an agenda?
Look at some of the language used here:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He's speaking from <b>his point of view</b>. An ambassador. As to give the prime minister the most accurate picture possible.
All this memo tells us is that some member of their government did not trust ours. If anything, the US should feel insulted, but honestly I don't care at all nor see a reason to.
Seriously, are people even giving this a proper historical analysis? (I.E. Frame of view, frame of CONTEXT)
Look at some of the language used:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So here they are speculating on possible war scenerio's
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
© CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A list of conclusions, basically speculation based on more speculation. Of course, these are <b>oppinions</b> after all, Rycroft is offering his professional oppinion. He realized what he had to say may be controversial, and that is why he labeled the top of the paper with:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Basically, he knew his oppinion could be taken too seriously and not as the kind of "entertaining of thought" high level politicians are accumstomed to.
To review the context:
- Anti-war sentiments from a person in another governement
- His oppinion and analysis of the situation
- Trusted individual? Sure. Perfect? No.
- Evidence to damn Bush? Not in the slightest.
This proof is shaky at best. Falls under revisionist history.
That is why the memo is so controversial, because it is fully stated that Bush wants to attack no matter what the actual situation is.
All I see in the attached editorials is rationalization for hate without substance.
As for the Washington Democrats, don't buy into their cat calls. They're just busy trying to dent Bush's armor. Which is strange considering neither he, nor Cheney, will be running next term. Unless you consider his overall approval as a signal for passing other policies.
Otherwise, I see this as fringe outrage. It's no secret that the extreme Left is generating an emboldened set of marching orders. It's funny really. I'd say there is more substantial outrage from Conservatives over border policies, spending excesses, and spineless waivering on judicial nominations than the Left could ever conjure with war memos. Anyway, good luck to em. They're gonna need it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did you read the article?
The issue is that the memo states that the evidence for war was shaky, and that US intelligence was being "fixed around the policy," which if true is very very impeachable. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, I read everything I can before I make comments or I mention that I haven't read anything in my post. Your insistence that I don't read your drivel in these threads is getting old. People disagree. Get over it and realize that there is more than 1 point of view on the planet. flipping intolerant liberals.
Now then. The text of the memo. The meanings of the words used don't seem to jive with the outrage associated with them. I'll post them line by line.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC (Joint Intelligence Committee) assessment.
Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear.
The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action.
Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming.
His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US.
Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor.
Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington.
<b>There was a perceptible shift in attitude.</b> (why was there a shift here?)
Military action was now seen as inevitable.
Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.
<b>But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.</b> (here he mentions that Bush wants to use force then he uses the word "but". Why? Why not use "and". Naysayers believe the intent of the word "fixed" is used in place of "corrected". I see it, by use in context, as "focussed" or "concentrated". Then the word "policy". Which policy? Military action or diplomatic? By use of the word "but" at the beginning, I'm lead to believe he means that intelligence time was being spent on diplomacy or negotiation rather than the context of war)
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. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Those are the two beginning paragraphs that everyone seems to be upset about. But once again, I don't see anything here that represents a mega-conspiracy to create a need for war. The pieces were all in place long ago. This memo is one of many, I'm sure, that briefs the discussions and rationale that took place within the prior year. Trying to parse it without taking into account absolutely everything that was going on at the time is simply insolent.
But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. (here he mentions that Bush wants to use force then he uses the word "but". Why? Why not use "and". Naysayers believe the intent of the word "fixed" is used in place of "corrected". I see it, by use in context, as "focussed" or "concentrated". Then the word "policy". Which policy? Military action or diplomatic? By use of the word "but" at the beginning, I'm lead to believe he means that intelligence time was being spent on diplomacy or negotiation rather than the context of war.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would look at the "but" a different way. The "but" seems more like it references the "justified" area of that first sentence up there. If we make it a compound sentence...
<i>Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD, but the intellignece and facts were being fixed around the policy.</i>
The "but" may be a reference that, roughly, the preceding was "good" but the following was "bad." Also, what other policy could "the policy" refer to, other than a determination to justify a war? "The policy" is being used in sort of a pronoun-ish way, and pronouns in English tend to refer to the closest preceding applicable noun.
It's not damning, and after all, it's just a professional opinion, but it pretty nicely represents why I have a deep, <i>deep</i> distrust of politicians. It takes time to tell whether they are hiding bloodstained daggers behind their feigned shields of righteousness.
Also remember that this was written by a Brit, and Brits use words a little differently than we here in the US.
I'm not familiar enough with the other posters here to know which of you are also Brits. If your from England, what does that sentence sound like to you? How would you have phrased that sentence, in both cases (meaning "edited", or meaning "focused".)
To me, that sentence makes more sense assuming fixed means "focused" rather than "edited". But I'm from the US, so I wouldn't know for sure how you guys talk over there,
Never even occurred to me that others might see it as focused.
That is why the memo is so controversial, because it is fully stated that Bush wants to attack no matter what the actual situation is. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
But it is his oppinion. One man's oppinion does not speak the truth. I fail to see any controversy.
Bush's oppinion = based on evidence
Rycroft's oppinion = based on speculation
So by any logical sort of thinking, one can trust Bush but one cannot trust this document as anything more than historical evidence describing the feelings of the British governement at the time.
First of all, I read everything I can before I make comments or I mention that I haven't read anything in my post. Your insistence that I don't read your drivel in these threads is getting old. People disagree. Get over it and realize that there is more than 1 point of view on the planet. flipping intolerant liberals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I asked you that because your previous post didn't indicate any knowledge of the reasons for the controversy or the questionable components of the memo. Your second post did. No need for the condescension/ ad hominem. My post wasn't very long, I can't imagine that there was enough content in there to characterize it as "drivel."
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Now then. The text of the memo. The meanings of the words used don't seem to jive with the outrage associated with them. I'll post them line by line.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC (Joint Intelligence Committee) assessment.
Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear.
The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action.
Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming.
His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US.
Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor.
Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington.
<b>There was a perceptible shift in attitude.</b> (why was there a shift here?)
Military action was now seen as inevitable.
Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.
<b>But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.</b> (here he mentions that Bush wants to use force then he uses the word "but". Why? Why not use "and". Naysayers believe the intent of the word "fixed" is used in place of "corrected". I see it, by use in context, as "focussed" or "concentrated". Then the word "policy". Which policy? Military action or diplomatic? By use of the word "but" at the beginning, I'm lead to believe he means that intelligence time was being spent on diplomacy or negotiation rather than the context of war)
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. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Those are the two beginning paragraphs that everyone seems to be upset about. But once again, I don't see anything here that represents a mega-conspiracy to create a need for war. The pieces were all in place long ago. This memo is one of many, I'm sure, that briefs the discussions and rationale that took place within the prior year. Trying to parse it without taking into account absolutely everything that was going on at the time is simply insolent.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How can <i>facts</i> be 'fixed' around a policy? Intelligence maybe, but facts? It could be just poor word choice on the part of the writer, but I can't think of a grammatically correct interpretation that doesn't imply inappropriate behavior.
First of all, I read everything I can before I make comments or I mention that I haven't read anything in my post. Your insistence that I don't read your drivel in these threads is getting old. People disagree. Get over it and realize that there is more than 1 point of view on the planet. flipping intolerant liberals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I asked you that because your previous post didn't indicate any knowledge of the reasons for the controversy or the questionable components of the memo. No need for the condescension/ ad hominem. My post wasn't very long, I can't imagine that there was enough content in there to characterize it as "drivel."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You disregard my post while assuming that I haven't read your link and then accuse me of ad-hominem?
Wow.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Now then. The text of the memo. The meanings of the words used don't seem to jive with the outrage associated with them. I'll post them line by line.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC (Joint Intelligence Committee) assessment.
Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear.
The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action.
Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming.
His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US.
Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor.
Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington.
<b>There was a perceptible shift in attitude.</b> (why was there a shift here?)
Military action was now seen as inevitable.
Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.
<b>But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.</b> (here he mentions that Bush wants to use force then he uses the word "but". Why? Why not use "and". Naysayers believe the intent of the word "fixed" is used in place of "corrected". I see it, by use in context, as "focussed" or "concentrated". Then the word "policy". Which policy? Military action or diplomatic? By use of the word "but" at the beginning, I'm lead to believe he means that intelligence time was being spent on diplomacy or negotiation rather than the context of war)
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. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Those are the two beginning paragraphs that everyone seems to be upset about. But once again, I don't see anything here that represents a mega-conspiracy to create a need for war. The pieces were all in place long ago. This memo is one of many, I'm sure, that briefs the discussions and rationale that took place within the prior year. Trying to parse it without taking into account absolutely everything that was going on at the time is simply insolent.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How can <i>facts</i> be 'fixed' around a policy. Intelligence maybe, but facts? It could be just poor word choice on the part of the writer, but I can't think of a grammatically correct interpretation that doesn't imply inappropriate behavior.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
IF you read my post, you'd see one example of a grammatically correct interpretation that doesn't imply inappropriate behavior. I don't expect you to accept that definition as truth, but flippantly ignoring it is a bit petty.
If the State Department was busy gathering data to support an international "intervention" in Iraq, they'd be "focussed" on diplomatic issues rather than the military path. Factions within the State Department are often characterized as putting off military directions and it was highly rumored that Powell, then Secretary of State, wasn't pleased with the idea of military action. When Powell presented the case to the UN in such a forcefull manner, the press fell over itself showcasing the supposed change in attitude.
You won't hear me say that I'm certain this is the real message from the memo, but I see enough history to keep me from believing any conspiracy.
If the State Department was busy gathering data to support an international "intervention" in Iraq, they'd be "focussed" on diplomatic issues rather than the military path. Factions within the State Department are often characterized as putting off military directions and it was highly rumored that Powell, then Secretary of State, wasn't pleased with the idea of military action. When Powell presented the case to the UN in such a forcefull manner, the press fell over itself showcasing the supposed change in attitude.
You won't hear me say that I'm certain this is the real message from the memo, but I see enough history to keep me from believing any conspiracy. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That seems to me to be only an explanation for how intelligence could be 'fixed' around the policy. I still don't see how it can apply to facts.
If the State Department was busy gathering data to support an international "intervention" in Iraq, they'd be "focussed" on diplomatic issues rather than the military path. Factions within the State Department are often characterized as putting off military directions and it was highly rumored that Powell, then Secretary of State, wasn't pleased with the idea of military action. When Powell presented the case to the UN in such a forcefull manner, the press fell over itself showcasing the supposed change in attitude.
You won't hear me say that I'm certain this is the real message from the memo, but I see enough history to keep me from believing any conspiracy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That seems to me to be only an explanation for how intelligence could be 'fixed' around the policy. I still don't see how it can apply to facts. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I suppose that depends on how you define the difference between intelligence and facts.
If the State Department was busy gathering data to support an international "intervention" in Iraq, they'd be "focussed" on diplomatic issues rather than the military path. Factions within the State Department are often characterized as putting off military directions and it was highly rumored that Powell, then Secretary of State, wasn't pleased with the idea of military action. When Powell presented the case to the UN in such a forcefull manner, the press fell over itself showcasing the supposed change in attitude.
You won't hear me say that I'm certain this is the real message from the memo, but I see enough history to keep me from believing any conspiracy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That seems to me to be only an explanation for how intelligence could be 'fixed' around the policy. I still don't see how it can apply to facts. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I suppose that depends on how you define the difference between intelligence and facts. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Intelligence can refer to facts we've acquired, but it can also refer to institutions such as, "He's working in intelligence." We refer to intelligence as a department of the military. As such, it makes sense to me to state that intelligence was being fixed around the policy (kinda) because I can see that interpreted as the institution focusing its attention. It still seems awkwardly worded, but I could accept that explanation. Facts still doesn't make any sense to me in that context. I can't think of any way that facts can be legitimately 'fixed' or even focused.
Because they weren't facts, or the facts were distorted. I haven't found the initial articles about the intelligence dossier (which was largely plagarised from a years old essay), but this article (<a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1445965,00.html' target='_blank'>here</a>) talks about "fixing" in part. An example would be the infamous 45-minute claim.
MI6 is, theoretically, part of the military (MI = Military Intelligence), but the government has influence over it.
Oh, and welcome back, M. (:
Shhh. I'm not really back, I'm just relapsing. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
As Spooge already pointed out, doesn't this go towards proving that they really believed Saddam had WMD? If they knew he didn't and were just inventing stories, they wouldn't bother discussing what would happen if he actually used his WMDs. The intelligence on Iraqi WMDs was mistaken, but it was real--not lies.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If they had had absolutely definite intelligence (as they had claimed) that Saddam had nuclear capabilities, (yes, the US claimed their existance prior to the war, specifically refering to the "Nuclear Bomb" at least once) the war would not have happened in the first place.
I expected from the very beginning, that there are no signifficant WMD capabilities in Iraq.
Why? Two reasons:
1)
Because the country was under embargo for more than a decade. How could they possibly afford them? Left alone how would they aquire the know-how and the nesessary ressources under nearly total diplomatic isolation and military surveillance from the US 24/7? They weren't even able to maintain their industry...
2)
If Saddam had had a Nuke, he would have shown it to the world and nobody could have done anything. A Nuke means political sovereignty. Since the Cuba Crisis, a Nuke has been the absolute reasurance against any invasion.
Logic is your friend. But nobody wanted to listen or even think about these two little facts. Reasa is right. People are lazy... too lazy to think.
Bush's oppinion = based on evidence
Rycroft's oppinion = based on speculation
So by any logical sort of thinking, one can trust Bush but one cannot trust this document as anything more than historical evidence describing the feelings of the British governement at the time. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry if I missed the sarcasm, but...
<a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=opinion' target='_blank'>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=opinion</a>
Consult it for both the spelling and the definition. An opinion is <b>not substantiated</b> by proof. Thus in your analogy, both opinions while "based on" different things as you say, one which we know to be definitively wrong (Bush's) without an argument, are both just speculation. So basically one speculation which is absolutely wrong makes the individual who made it more trustworthy than another guy who made a speculation which is up for debate. No matter which side you take on what Rycroft said, they're either both liars or Bush is the only one we shouldn't be trusting.
Then again the analogy was a joke, right?