Downing Street memo

[SonomaCat]

So essentially the burden of proof you are placing on iaa is higher than it was for us to go to war in the first place. Therein lies a problem.

BAC,

I know you think you're way ahead of all us poor old red-staters but I'm pretty sure neither you nor anyone on this board has seen 1% of the data the Bush & Clinton Administrations had regarding Saddam's WMD capacity.

I'm confident that the evidence presented to our leaders was IMMENSELY more substantial than what I'm requesting of iaa. You, like iaa, simply are so desperate to find reasons to dislike/disagree with/hate Bush that your after-the-fact attacks have taken over your ability to simply say that, unfortunately, the evidence (both BUSH'S & CLINTON'S) was wrong.

I'm sorry that folks like you and iaa have decided that Bush is evil and that he did all this just to make a buck for himself & his pals, but it simply isn't the case.

You asked iaa for a smoking gun to back up his claims, but we didn't have a smoking gun that led us to go to war. It seemed like an interesting contrast point.

And anytime you want to find a post of mine that says Bush is evil or that the war was for profit, please let me know (you won't find any, but have fun looking). I'm getting a little weary of people putting iaa's words into my mouth. If you are going to debate points in my post, please address points I have actually made (you're about the 4th person to do that, so that message is more of a broadcast message and not so much directly to you).

I have been very clear as to the specific reasons why I lost faith in the administration (after voting for him) regarding some of our foreign policy moves, and I have also posted about things that they have done that I have liked, so there is no need to try to belittle my opinions by trying to cast me as a hysterical Bush-hater. We all know that characterization, as you say, simply isn't the case.

[jagur1]

BAC does that mean your not 1-aa?

[Grizlaw]

While it may not PROVE that he had them, I suppose it's similar to the way the Russians assumed we had more nukes after dropping a couple of them on Japan.

Fact is, he had them & he used them so it's really not a giant leap to figure that he has more of them and/or the ability to create more...

I believe even the "slowest" of lawyers would surmise that!

Gato, I'm shocked, but you failed to address the point of my post.

President Bush and his administration did not stand in front of the world and say "Saddam had WMDs fifteen years ago, so it's not a 'giant leap' to figure he has more." Nor did he tell us that he "assumes" Saddam has more in the way that Russia assumed we had more nukes. What he told us was that he KNEW Saddam had WMDs TO A CERTAINTY, based on CURRENT EVIDENCE. Period.

To borrow your phrasing, I believe even the "slowest" of entrepreneurs from Kalispell can appreciate the nuance between the two statements, yes?

[El_Gato]

...What he told us was that he KNEW Saddam had WMDs TO A CERTAINTY, based on CURRENT EVIDENCE...

Care to give me the specific source for that quote? I'm simply pointing out that he DID, in fact, use WMD's in the past, so that would obviously be a key piece of evidence in determining whether or not he still had them, would it not?

BTW, I was not trying to imply YOU were the slow lawyer; simply that MOST people can make that inference. I know from your posts that you probably finished closer to the top of your class than to the bottom.

[mquast53000]

I would think that Grizlaw finished closer to the bottom half considering his preference in Montana’s Universities…

[Grizlaw]

BTW, I was not trying to imply YOU were the slow lawyer; simply that MOST people can make that inference. I know from your posts that you probably finished closer to the top of your class than to the bottom.

*blinks*

If someone had told me when I woke up this morning that today I was either going to get hit by a grand piano which fell out of the window of a fifteenth floor apartment or else Gato was going to give me a compliment, I would have assumed the grand piano.

Uh...thanks. You're a worthy adversary as well.

As for the quote -- it wasn't a direct quote, but I know statements were made by Bush and others that conveyed the general premise. I can't do it right now, but I will find something later...

[iaafan]

El Gato your verbal attack is a symbol of the problem. You want to intimidate, rather than reason…point out my faults, rather than discuss the situation. I, and I think all Americans, want Bush to be the greatest president we’ve ever had, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to sit by idly when there are solid reasons to question his work or cower to those who feel questioning him is not for the ‘good of the nation.”

If you want to continue this behavior that’s your prerogative and the same can be said for those who condone your words. I don’t have that big of a problem with your attacks, because I know most reasonable people are driven away by them.

In response to request for proof, I posted an article written by Mark Danner. I don't claim that Danner has proof in this article, but I think he sums up my feelings. If you have something that refutes Danner's, or other like his, story, I'd like to see it.

So now, in this duel, you've created...the ball is in your court.

[El_Gato]

How about the quotes I used above from the previous administration? Don't they pretty much sum up what you're trying to claim Bush was stating as well?

The point: Based on ALL the data put in front of them, the Bush Administration decided war in Iraq was the best way to protect America. Were they right? Hard to say; I haven't seen any terrorist attacks on our soil since 9/11, so maybe. Or maybe there wouldn't have been any without invading Iraq. No one knows for certain but the fact is that we haven't been attacked. SOME of that must be due to Bush & his efforts.

I do know that virtually everyone "in the know" felt that Saddam was a significant threat to the world & I, for one, am glad he's done and gone. I'm just tired of hindsight attacks at the Pres now that we know SH wasn't as big a threat as was thought previously.

Trust me, I'm no Bush fan; he spends money like most Dem's wildest dreams; his education policy is just another wasteful, ineffective Washington sham; he's lost his backbone when it comes to revamping the nation's tax-code; and he's done a terrible job selling Social Security reform. But based on all the evidence I've seen and heard, I simply cannot accept the premise that he KNEW there were no WMD's in Iraq but took us to war anyway...

[mquast53000]

...he spends money like most Dem's wildest dreams...

Out of control spending? Would this be out of control spending?

Among the most striking federal government "pork" grants funded in November was $1.5 million for a new bus stop (several times more than the typical cost) in front of the Anchorage (Alaska) Museum of History and Art. To replace the current kiosk, the city's transportation director said he imagines a generous upgrade, including perhaps a heated sidewalk to deal with the snow: "We have a senator (Ted Stevens) who gave us that money, and I certainly won't want to appear ungrateful." [Winston-Salem Journal-AP, 5-19-05]

[El_Gato]

iaa,

Where is my attack? That I called you "venom-spewing"?

You're right, NO ONE should be labeled unpatriotic for questioning the President and no one should be ostracized for questioning any leader's motives and/or decisions...

BUT...

You made the CLAIM many times in this thread that Bush KNEW there were no WMD'S in Iraq & took us to war anyway & IT'S SIMPLY NOT TRUE. You stated it as if it was a KNOWN FACT and it's not; please stop trying to use it as ammunition against him! Referencing an opinion column when someone asks you for facts doesn't cut it. If you want to express your opinion, FINE! That's why we're ALL here. I'm simply asking you to quit trying to state as fact things that aren't! Grizlaw, back me up here! I'm asking for evidence to prove what iaa is stating as fact; the fact that he can't produce any is pretty damaging to his case, is it not?

I'm off to read the column you keep referencing if I can access the link; I will respond afterward.

[iaafan]

Yes, please read the column and tell me what you think of it. I'm interested in hearing your take.

Grizlaw can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I believe many court cases are ruled on based on what is called circumstantial evidence. In other words when you go to bed at night and there is no snow on the ground, then when you wake up in the morning there is snow on the ground (indirect evidence) the circumstantial evidence 'proves' that is snowed overnight. Even though no one actually saw (direct evidence) it snow.

OR: If a man fingered for stealing money from his company made a number of pricey purchases in cash around the time of the theft, that would be circumstantial evidence that he had stolen the money.

In Bush's case the scenario is as follows: He said he KNEW they had WMDs. When we went there we found none. So it's safe to say the he didn't KNOW there were WMDs. So this is proof that he, or someone, is sending the US to war even though they don’t know for sure. A fair question ask based on that is: Did he KNOW there were no WMD's? Currently the circumstantial evidence includes, but isn't limited to, 1) the Downing Street memo, 2) he went to war with Iraq and not other countries that do have WMDs, 3) his assumption that victory would be swift, 4) his proclamation of victory after landing on an aircraft carrier, 5) the UN weapons inspectors said there were no WMDs. How would a jury rule on this evidence after it were explained in more sufficient detail?

You say you have circumstantial evidence that Iraq did have WMDs based on the fact they had them over 10 years prior to 9/11. What other evidence was there that they had WMDs? Is there as much evidence of that as there is that Bush knew there was none?

[El_Gato]

iaa,

Did you see my post where I quoted a number of previous officials who stated Saddam DEFINITELY possessed WMD's?

Where are your attacks on Clinton, et. al?

From what I've read thus far of the DSM, the biggest accusation appears to be that Bush was PLANNING an invasion before the invasion actually took place. I think the word PLANNING is interesting here; liberals want to attack Bush for planning a military campaign and then turn around and attack him for NOT planning a post-military campaign. Sounds like the goal of the libs it to attack, no matter what; ironic that they accuse Bush of that, isn't it? The point is, Bush gave the UN & Saddam more than enough time to prevent the invasion. THEY didn't defuse the situation even though they had ample opportunity to do so. I don't fault Bush for acting after all that. I seriously doubt that Bush would have invaded if Saddam had complied with the UN resolution and allowed TRUE inspections to take place. What leg would Bush have had to stand on at that point?

I'm done addressing you after this one. It's pretty simple, even though you won't admit it:

* EVERYONE involved in world politics believed Saddam had WMD's and/or the ability to create them.
* The Bush Administration & the Congress of the U.S.A., along with the British government decided overwhelmingly that Saddam posed a direct threat to the U.S. and invaded Iraq in order to remove that threat.
* To this date, no WMD's have been found.

You have offered nothing more than 1 person's cryptic interpretation of a single memo to support your accusation that Bush KNEW without a doubt that there were no WMD's to find.

I find it interesting how you've "softened" your accusation. Earlier in the thread, you STATE AS FACT that Bush knew there were no WMD's to find. Now, however, you've backstepped a bit to "So this is proof that he, or someone, is sending the US to war even though they don’t know for sure. A fair question ask based on that is: Did he KNOW there were no WMD's?". That, my liberal friend, is a pretty big change in tone.

Case closed. I win.

[iaafan]

El Gato: You're a good writer, but your reading leaves a lot to be desired. As per your usual, you are misinterpreting what I say and misrepresenting it. I'm not going to ask you to go back and re-read my posts, because it's more than apparent that not only won't you, but if you did you would return with more twisted ramblings about what I said in previous posts.

I like your words: "Case closed. I win." Sounds a lot like: "Mission Accomplished."

[Grizlaw]

The thread has moved past this, but I did promise earlier that I would provide a cite for the quote (or paraphrase) that I gave earlier. This is obviously from a biased liberal website, but the quotes are all cited.

http://www.liberalslant.com/jt021604.htm

So anyway -- I left work about five hours ago, and went to my jiu-jitsu class, where I got the snot beaten out of me for about two hours, and now I'm in the comfort of my home (instead of at my office, which is where I usually am when I'm writing the b/s that you all read on this and other boards), and I'm in this Zen-like state which is probably condusive to philosophizing about Iraq. So if you're reading this, you might want to go grab a beer or something before you go any further (or you can have a wine cooler, Quast -- it's ok. j/k)

Here's the thing about WMDs: I don't think Bush really "lied" to us. Maybe he did; I don't know...but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he believed, in his heart, that Saddam had them. Maybe he even had good reason for believing it -- maybe he got bad intelligence, bad advice, or whatever other explanation I might not be thinking of right now.

The point is, at some point, someone in the chain of command came to the conclusion that Iraq had WMDs -- and, as of now, we can only conclude that whoever made that call was, in fact, wrong. I realize hindsight is 20/20, and maybe there was evidence at the time, but the fact is, no WMDs were found, and the allegation that we "knew" they were there was the justification for our attack.

Now, there are things in this world that it is OK to be wrong about. This is NOT one of those things! Preemptively attacking a country because we believe they pose an imminent threat to our security is not a trivial matter, and therefore, the fact that no WMDs were found cannot be treated as trivial either. I am not looking for someone to blame; all I am hoping for is that such a thing never happens again. The next time we decide that we need to invade a country and kill thousands of innocent people (including quite a few of our own) because we think they pose an imminent threat to our security, we d@mn well better be right.

I am not sure how I feel about preemptive strike as a national defense strategy; that's an ethical question I've been struggling with ever since the debate over attacking Iraq started. In some theoretical sense, I think it's wrong, but then there's my practical side -- the side that was living about a mile north of ground zero when the planes hit the towers, that knows quite a few people who lost loved ones that day, and that probably would have said "hell yeah!" if told that we knew the attacks were going to happen and that we could have stopped them by preemptively attacking a country. In that sense, I guess I'm ok with preemptive strikes against countries that genuinely do pose an imminent threat -- but again, we CANNOT be wrong. In the future, if there's any doubt about whether or not a country has WMDs and/or is a threat, then we should not be invading them.

End of sermon; please go back to your regularly scheduled name-calling and bickering.

[grizzh8r]

I have read this whole thread (it took a while) and it has been quite enlightening. I don't usually read this part of the forums, because I am fairly passionate about politics, and I get worked up over them and ususally end up saying something I shouldn't.

That being said, I pretty much agree w/ GrizLaw in his last post. I too don't necessarily like preemptive strikes, but in this situation, based on what we THOUGHT we knew, I think an invasion was justified. Why else would Saddam have stalled when confronted with UN sanctioned investigations to search for WMD's? The logical conclusion was that he was hiding something, i.e., WMD's. Had he complied and allowed full access and not stonewalled Hans Blix and Co., I like to think that this war would not have happened.

Ending Saddam's reign of terror is (IMO) justification enough for this war. He, IMO is right up there with Hitler, Idi Amin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Milosevic, and like ilk. Don't get me wrong, I don't like the fact that we seem to be "Team America: World Police". In fact, I wish we could follow the words of advice uttered by George Washington when he stated that it would be prudent to stay out of world affairs (Oh, how I wish).

However, let us not forget that Saddam killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of innocent people, many of whom were HIS OWN. We unthroned a tyrant who needed to be taken down. Granted, to date no WMD's have been found. That was a mistake, but as numerous posters have stated, a mistake made by pretty much the whole world. Again, why else would he have been so unwilling to allow weapons inspectors do their work?

Now, whether the Sunni's and Shiite's (sp?) can get along democratically remains to be seen. IF they can, hopefully Iraq will be proof that Democracy can work in the Muslim world. I'm not holding my breath, but stranger things have happened. We can hope, can't we?

My 2 cents - im out - got to get some sleep...

['93HonoluluCat]

Then there's this.

(1AAFan, BAC, et al will argue the merits of National Review as a legitimate source, but I don't think it's any less legitimate than the writings on the "Slate" website so oft cited by BAC.)

Bottom line of the article: the only reason the Memo is such a big deal is because those opposed to the war are taking too seriously the third-hand opinions from unnamed sources, relaying to other unnamed sources, all of which were in a recently declassified document.

Whether you are pro- or anti-Operation Iraqi Freedom, I encourage you to read the article for yourself.

[iaafan]

Seems as if this thread is winding down. Hopefully we can all come away from this agreeing to disagree, yet respecting each others opinions and beliefs. I offer these vignettes as an attempt at a humorous (and admittedly twisted) closing argument:

1) "the Downing Street memo"/you find a note to your significant other that says meet me at Muldowney's Pub after work. That's OK, doesn't mean they're having an affair, just out for a drink probably with a few others from work.

2) "he went to war with Iraq and not other countries that do have WMDs/"your significant other goes to the Pub with person who wrote note, but no others from work. That's OK, maybe they're just friends or that person needed to talk and your significant other has always been a good listener.

3) "his assumption that victory would be swift"/you ask your significant other about the note and meeting and are told, "Oh, we were just having a quick drink" eventhough you can tell they had 4-5 drinks. That's OK, because it all depends on your definition of 'swift' or 'quick.'

4) "his proclamation of victory after landing on an aircraft carrier"/your significant other claims, 'We're just friends, it's OK!' before after you ask about how "4-5 drinks are a quick drink?" That's OK, just jumped the gun because significant other knows you have some expectations and doesn't want to disappoint you.

5) "the UN weapons inspectors said there were no WMDs"/the bartender tells you there's nothing going on. Whatever, bartenders/weapons inspectors, what do they know. That doesn't mean anything.

The end.

So, what do think my chances of becoming a writer for the Bill Maher Show are?

[iaafan]

By the way H-Cat I liked the article and could see where the writer was coming from. I don't agree with him, but understood how he came to his viewpoint.

I believe that Bush went to war with Iraq using terrorism as an excuse, when actually there was another reason. I understand that others believe he really was solely acting on that belief that Iraq was something to the effect of a terrorist threat.

[Grizlaw]

So, what do think my chances of becoming a writer for the Bill Maher Show are?

Zero.

But your point is well-taken.

[Grizlaw]

A couple quick points in response to grizzh8r's post.

First, on the "why else would Saddam not cooperate with inspectors" question -- my theory on that question is and always has been that he *wanted* his neighbors in the region to believe he had WMDs. By allowing inspectors into the country and allowing it to be proven that he did not possess WMDs, Saddam would have lost a lot of his power in the region, and I think that is why he didn't want to cooperate. I'm not saying that makes him right; it's just an explanation.

As to the main point, that unseating Saddam was justification enough to go to war, I think only time will tell whether or not that turns out to be the case. I agree that he is an evil man and that the region is better off without him, but unseating him is turning out to be a very expensive proposition in several ways: it has cost us a lot of political capital with our allies, it has cost thousands of lives, and economically it has contributed substantially to our huge budget deficits for the foreseeable future.

Perhaps ultimately the benefit of removing him will outweigh the cost; a lot will depend on what type of regime ends up ruling Iraq when it is finally stable (after all, there is no guarantee, at this point, that Iraq's new government will be any better than Saddam). What we do know is that removing him has been costly, and that America is bearing the vast majority of that cost herself. As honorable as that may seem, I don't consider it our responsibility to police the world, and I don't want us to assume that role every time the opportunity arises in the future.