|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools |
05-12-2005, 07:49 AM | #42 (permalink) | |
Loser
|
Quote:
Of course, that's not true. He manipulated them AND told them to fuck off when they weren't buying the lies. |
|
05-12-2005, 08:44 AM | #43 (permalink) | |||||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
05-12-2005, 09:04 AM | #44 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Is this a sign of momentum driven by a growing awareness, or an isolated gesture?
Families of fallen US Soldiers organization demand the immediate resignations of Bush, Cheney, and their cabinet officials so that "A return to private citizen status will mean that the people responsible for so much death and destruction will be able to be held accountable to the laws of our land and for damaging humanity so thoroughly." Quote:
|
|
05-12-2005, 05:07 PM | #45 (permalink) |
Deja Moo
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
|
Another meta-media experience? Perhaps the mainstream press has awakened.
www.truthout.org/docs_2005/051205A.shtml Indignation Grows in US over British Prewar Documents By John Daniszewski The Los Angeles Times Thursday 12 May 2005 Critics of Bush call them proof that he and Blair never saw diplomacy as an option with Hussein. London - Reports in the British press this month based on documents indicating that President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair had conditionally agreed by July 2002 to invade Iraq appear to have blown over quickly in Britain. But in the United States, where the reports at first received scant attention, there has been growing indignation among critics of the Bush White House, who say the documents help prove that the leaders made a secret decision to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein nearly a year before launching their attack, shaped intelligence to that aim and never seriously intended to avert the war through diplomacy. The documents, obtained by Michael Smith, a defense specialist writing for the Sunday Times of London, include a memo of the minutes of a meeting July 23, 2002, between Blair and his intelligence and military chiefs; a briefing paper for that meeting and a Foreign Office legal opinion prepared before an April 2002 summit between Blair and Bush in Texas. The picture that emerges from the documents is of a British government convinced of the US desire to go to war and Blair's agreement to it, subject to several specific conditions. Since Smith's report was published May 1, Blair's Downing Street office has not disputed the documents' authenticity. Asked about them Wednesday, a Blair spokesman said the report added nothing significant to the much-investigated record of the lead-up to the war. "At the end of the day, nobody pushed the diplomatic route harder than the British government.... So the circumstances of this July discussion very quickly became out of date," said the spokesman, who asked not to be identified. The leaked minutes sum up the July 23 meeting, at which Blair, top security advisors and his attorney general discussed Britain's role in Washington's plan to oust Hussein. The minutes, written by Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy aide, indicate general thoughts among the participants about how to create a political and legal basis for war. The case for military action at the time was "thin," Foreign Minister Jack Straw was characterized as saying, and Hussein's government posed little threat. Labeled "secret and strictly personal - UK eyes only," the minutes begin with the head of the British intelligence service, MI6, who is identified as "C," saying he had returned from Washington, where there had been a "perceptible shift in attitude. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and [weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy." Straw agreed that Bush seemed determined to act militarily, although the timing was not certain. "But the case was thin," the minutes say. "Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capacity was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran." Straw then proposed to "work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam" to permit United Nations weapons inspectors back into Iraq. "This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force," he said, according to the minutes. Blair said, according to the memo, "that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors." "If the political context were right, people would support regime change," Blair said. "The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work." In addition to the minutes, the Sunday Times report referred to a Cabinet briefing paper that was given to participants before the July 23 meeting. It stated that Blair had already promised Bush cooperation earlier, at the April summit in Texas. "The UK would support military action to bring about regime change," the Sunday Times quoted the briefing as saying. Excerpts from the paper, which Smith provided to the Los Angeles Times, said Blair had listed conditions for war, including that "efforts had been made to construct a coalition/shape public opinion, the Israel-Palestine crisis was quiescent," and options to "eliminate Iraq's WMD through the UN weapons inspectors" had been exhausted. The briefing paper said the British government should get the US to put its military plans in a "political framework." "This is particularly important for the UK because it is necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action," it says. In a letter to Bush last week, 89 House Democrats expressed shock over the documents. They asked if the papers were authentic and, if so, whether they proved that the White House had agreed to invade Iraq months before seeking Congress' OK. "If the disclosure is accurate, it raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of our own administration," the letter says. "While the president of the United States was telling the citizens and the Congress that they had no intention to start a war with Iraq, they were working very close with Tony Blair and the British leadership at making this a foregone conclusion," the letter's chief author, Rep. John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, said Wednesday. If the documents are real, he said, it is "a huge problem" in terms of an abuse of power. He said the White House had not yet responded to the letter. Both Blair and Bush have denied that a decision on war was made in early 2002. The White House and Downing Street maintain that they were preparing for military operations as an option, but that the option to not attack also remained open until the war began March 20, 2003. In January 2002, Bush described Iraq as a member of an "axis of evil," but the sustained White House push for Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions did not come until September of that year. That month, Bush addressed the UN General Assembly to outline a case against Hussein's government, and he sought a bipartisan congressional resolution authorizing the possible use of force. In November 2002, the UN Security Council approved a resolution demanding that Iraq readmit weapons inspectors. An effort to pass a second resolution expressly authorizing the use of force against Iraq did not succeed. |
05-19-2005, 10:30 PM | #46 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Okay, thirteen days after 89 congressman signed this letter
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democ...emoltr5505.pdf Here is the reported response from the propaganda ministry of our "war president": Quote:
Is there any point where Bush supporters, who exhibit such a low level of tolerance concerning the confirmation of Newsweek's recent report about "koran abuse", will consider it unreasonable for the president to openly avoid accountability about the circumstances that caused him to lead the U.S. to invade and occupy Iraq? |
|
05-20-2005, 06:18 AM | #47 (permalink) |
Cracking the Whip
Location: Sexymama's arms...
|
Soooo,
In one post you're are pissed that we were trying to stop him with diplomacy (using gas on his own people) and then when we decided to act...you are pissed. Ok...
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate! |
05-20-2005, 07:07 AM | #48 (permalink) |
Somnabulist
Location: corner of No and Where
|
Oy. I can't believe I'm saying this yet again: the importance of this memo has nothing to do with whether you believe we should have invaded Iraq or not. Instead, its importance is entirely based on the issue of Bush and Blair concocting fake reasons to convince their populaces to support a war that the two of them wanted. It's about bamboozling, and lying to the public to gain support for a war rather than lay out an honest case.
For this, amongst other things, I'm quite certain that there's a special level of hell reserved for Bush.
__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'" |
05-20-2005, 08:06 AM | #49 (permalink) |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
As a neo-con I have a response for you.
*shrug*
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
05-20-2005, 08:38 AM | #50 (permalink) |
Loser
|
By any means necessary. Of course, if one lie is acceptable - why not a dozen lies? Or nothing but lies? They're all acceptable if that's what it takes to "convince" the American public of what it doesn't know best. While we're subverting the American public, lets just get rid of this whole election thing anyway. I mean, since the American public clearly can't be trusted to do the "right thing", as defined by Ustwo and George Bush, why even give them the modicum of an option every 4 years?
But lo, if the lie is something totally innocuous, like an extra-marital affair - Ustwo will be leading the charge! |
05-20-2005, 08:49 AM | #51 (permalink) |
Somnabulist
Location: corner of No and Where
|
Hey, Ustwo, I have an idea. 4 years from now, lets all elect a Democratic president. Then, he or she will decide, quite rightly, that neocons are by and large machiavellian chickenhawsk whose megalomaniacal designs for world power trump any known sense of decency. So the new president, in a rare and brilliant moment of irony appreciation, decides its best to send all the neocons to Abu Ghraib - as prisoners. Now, this new president shouldn't have to try and convince the American public or Congress that this should happen on its merits, should he/she? No. See, the new president knows best, and whatever the preznit wants, the preznit gets. So the preznit will lie, claim that neocons helped undertake 9/11, that they gave WMD to Saddam Hussein (oh wait, that one's true, thanks Rummy), and then trick the American people into doing something they wouldn't otherwise do.
But that's OK, right? Cause preznit knows best.
__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'" |
05-20-2005, 10:26 AM | #53 (permalink) | |
Still fighting it.
|
You shrug? A bare-faced lie takes two nations to war, and you shrug? There seem to be some seriously myopia going around out there. I, personally, care very much that the intelligence was shaped to fit the policy, because that leads us to ask, what, then, shaped the policy, if not the intelligence? That SCARES me. It's like a fucking shadow play out there or something.
And THIS: Quote:
|
|
05-20-2005, 10:33 AM | #54 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
The search words ("weapons" "mass" "destruction" "government" "threat" "disarm" "qaeda" "freedom" "free" "iraq" )are linked here: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...&hl=en&start=1 The words "democracy" and "democratic" are not found. There is only one reference to "free Iraq". New reasons to "fix the facts" came afterwards. Here is an aptly titled reminder of how we got here: <img src="http://me.to/images/svr018.gif"> <img src="http://me.to/images/svr020.gif"> <img src="http://me.to/images/svr021.gif"> <h4>Do you see the words "democratic" or "democracy", or much of an emphasis on anything but WMD, and a whole paragraph linking the discredited "Al Qaeda" link? "Deception" is highlighted at the top of the page. We want to know who intentionally deceived our country into invading and occupying another country.</h4> |
|
05-20-2005, 12:08 PM | #55 (permalink) |
Cracking the Whip
Location: Sexymama's arms...
|
I was talking about your posts, not the previous ones.
In one, you seem upset over the fact that Saddam was attacking his own people while we were engaging him. In another you seem upset that we engaged him. As to the charge made ad naseum, we've been over this ground at least a dozen times. I too could provide dozens upon dozens of cut and pasted articles where people from both sides of the aisle state Saddam had WMDs. I could paste all the violations of the UN resolutions. I could paste articles on the first gulf wars. Yada yada. But you've made up it very clear that you've made up your mind. So why bother?
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate! |
05-20-2005, 12:12 PM | #56 (permalink) |
Cracking the Whip
Location: Sexymama's arms...
|
I see we need another warning. I don't see any reason to pile on to a poster because you don't like his position. And one of you knows better. One seven day time out issued to Manx. Anyone care to join him in the box?
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate! |
05-20-2005, 01:28 PM | #57 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. Last edited by SecretMethod70; 06-06-2005 at 04:26 PM.. |
|
05-20-2005, 10:02 PM | #59 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
05-20-2005, 10:53 PM | #60 (permalink) | |
Psycho
Location: Buffalo, New York
|
Quote:
That is an interesting quote, and there is no denying that Robert H. Jackson was a man of many talents. But, if we are to base our arguments here at least in part on Justice Jackson - as Host would have us do, apparently - it is important to remember that current international law does not even offer a definition of aggression that could be applied to any trial of US citizens involved in the Iraq War. At least, I don't THINK that it does...it's on the books, but it's vague as vague can be. The US - spanning years and multiple Administrations - has effectively spurned many of the ideas of Jackson regarding international law. I'm not saying whether this is good or bad, I'm just stating facts as they appear to me from official US policy stances over the years. On another note, I fail to see why this topic is repeatedly jammed like a finger in my eye, and with such accusatory language. It's becoming insulting. The arguments presented here will most likely change NOT ONE SINGLE OPINION, and yet posters persevere? Haven't we reached a point where we have tired of the slick, sarcastic language, the information overload, and the attempts to use the English language to "one-up" perceived rivals on this forum? The problem is that everyone who supports investigations on the Administration and Iraq needs to get someone who is willing to gather the evidence - THAT WILL STAND UP IN COURT UNDER SCRUTINY - and then get the indictments out! I have said it before and will say it again - I would support the rulings of a US court on any such investigation - even if it meant that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, etc. took a trip to Leavenworth as a result. I would hope that all of my fellow Republicans/Bush supporters would agree? But you had better hurry, because these damn investigations take time, and there's always the very real possibility of Presidential pardons when the next person takes office. Hillary Clinton might not go the pardon route, but I could see Giuliani or Powell doing so in a hearbeat. Last edited by MoonDog; 05-21-2005 at 12:55 AM.. |
|
05-21-2005, 12:35 PM | #61 (permalink) | |
Psycho
|
Quote:
This is the issue that has me conflicted about the whole thing. I'm glad he's gone. Given the binary choice between Saddam/No Saddam, I suspect 100% of people on this forum would choose the second option. There is significant good that comes of him being gone. But it wasn't a binary choice. And what I see you writing, Seaver, is that ends justify the means. I'm no philosopher, but I don't buy that. I think good things can happen from bad means, but more often it goes the other way. Two things here:
It's way to early to determine if the outcomes will be good. Because of the choices made, there were costs to:
Will the cost of those someday overwrite the benefit of Saddam being gone? Or does ANY amount of things on that list not outweigh Saddam being gone? I would find that hard to believe is your stance. It's the second item that has my panties in a twist, however. It may have worked the first time (may being the operative word), but can you trust him next time? Manipulating the American people to this degree can't be good. Doesn't that have a price? Or does it just not matter because Saddam is gone? That, too, is hard for me to believe. |
|
05-21-2005, 05:12 PM | #62 (permalink) |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
In war the ends always justify the means. To think or act otherwise is inviting disaster. I do not think the American people were majorly manipulated by lies and whatnot. You will note who won the election in 2004. All of these 'facts' have been out there and quite frankly most of us dont' care or don't believe them.
For me the obvious conclusion is the straight forward one. The WMD reports were overstated, and Bush acted on the information he had. Had it been nothing but a lie, we wouldn't be having this debate because someone willing to mislead a nation into war would also have planted plenty of 'WMD' evidence. The iroinc thing is its the honesty of the Bush administration which allows people to claim they are dishonest. If the Bush admin was truely as bad and evil as they claim there wouldn't be debate since they would have covered their bases.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
05-21-2005, 11:02 PM | #63 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Those of you who embrace and support these pre-emptive, aggressive war policies of the Bush administration do not seem to recognize the effects on you personally that result from your empowerment of the Bush administration. You post your defenses, justifications, rationale for invading and occupying Iraq under false or at least circumstances misleading to the point that no argument can be made that it was necessary for our national security. None of you has apparently experienced a personal loss or the shedding of the blood of someone close to you because of this war.
You have suffered other losses, because you have crossed a threshhold of opinion and belief that permits and supports the conduct of the Bush administration. You no longer require sincere disclosure or justification by the CIC of the U.S. military before he orders the sons and daughters of other Americans into harms way. That is a big leap for you to make, and I have to ask you, <h4>How dare you? How the fuck do you dare to support, and as a result, empower the current president, or any president, to send a son of my family into harms way, telling him and all of us that he is risking his life to quell a threat to our national security, when it is not fucking true?</h4> Quote:
44 months after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. found itself in August, 1945. Germany had been defeated by then, and two Japanese cities had been bombed by nuclear weapons that on Dec. 7, 1941, were only on the drawing boards, with no existing process to refine the fissionable material that made their unprecedented destructive force compact and cost effective enough to be delivered on an enemy from the air. In comparison the policies that you support have resulted in dividing the nation, slowing recruitment of volunteers to fill our military's manpower requirements, turned the outpouring of foreign sympathy for America post attack, and the sentiment to ally with Bush's intially declared "war on terrorism", into distance and disdain, and a measurable decline of foreign trust of the word of our president, state department, or of our military leaders. Our military commanders just this week describe our presence in Iraq as <a href="http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/11693778.htm">Iraq outlook bleak, U.S. generals say</a> , even as CIC Bush spins their pronouncements in his own misleading way. <a href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=bush+progress+iraq&btnG=Search+News">http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=bush+progress+iraq&btnG=Search+News</a> Last edited by host; 05-22-2005 at 12:00 AM.. |
|
05-21-2005, 11:18 PM | #64 (permalink) | |||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
05-22-2005, 07:03 AM | #65 (permalink) | |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
huh--i seem to remember that, during the cold war, the folk who wore white hats characterized the folk who wore black hats--you know, stalin et al--as being evil because they approached politics using an "ends justify the means" rationality. at that time, this rationality was framed as a kind of "anything goes" element within a type of ideological fanaticism.
it is pretty funny to read precisely this type of argument being floated above to justify the end-run around all legal parameters that cowboy george and his administration engineered in order to invade iraq. but it seems to track other modes of drift in argument... Quote:
unless what you mean by this argument, ustwo, to the extent that it is one, that war starts from the instant anyone thinks about war. in which case, the idea of war means nothing---it is a kind of psychological state, a formalised snippiness----only incidentally is war an actual event---for your argument to hold, war is a curiously nebulous thing the primary function of which is to legitimate any and all actions undertaken by an administration that you agree with politically--i expect that your definition of war would be very very different if, say, a democrat was in the white house. but that is the advantage of a nebulous idea--it is wholly instrumental from the outset, and in its use--the ends justify the means---right? at this point, the right only has "saddam hussein was a bad man" to legitimate its actions. well that and the rove response, which is to pretend that questions about the legitimacy of the war were somehow "answered" in the last election--which assumes that this information about distorting information as a function of a decision to go to war based on nothing was already in the public sphere before novemebr--which of course it wasnt, not in this obvious and detailed a way. so two arguments really: the end justifies the means, and we already had this debate. both these arguments are simply nuts. what they point to is the amazing ability to avoid dissonant information that seems characteristic of conservative ideology--why face unpleasant facts when you can always just turn on fox news, which will not bother you with it?---this of course as an argument is at once not much different from the "war" argument above--for all the years of husseins rule that saw him a convenient tool of american foreign policy, he might have been a dickhead, but he was our dickhead and so nothing was said about him, about his actions--not even the infamous use of gas, which the reagan administration knew full well about and said nothing about because, at the time, the argument that it was directed against a military target was enough. after the invasion of kuwait, however he stopped being convenient and so became evil incarnate. hussein himself was a miserable, brutal piece character the entire time--what changed was the american relation to him. is iraq better off without saddam hussein? probably. of course it is hard to know what is really going on in iraq still because the pooled press is still relaying defense department talking points in the main. there are arguments that iraq is sliding toward civil war. this would be a complete fiasco. but i am sure the right will "take the long view" on this. but even if iraq were a rosy, lovely situation now (it obviously is not) would this in any way justify the extralegal activities of the bush administration? not in the slightest. but maybe this is why the nebulous category "war" and the pseudo-argument attached to it above makes sense: it is nothing other than an empty slogan that enables a refusal to think about unpleasant information.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 05-22-2005 at 07:10 AM.. |
|
05-22-2005, 08:30 AM | #66 (permalink) |
Somnabulist
Location: corner of No and Where
|
I just love how there can be piles of evidence - the known lie about Niger yellowcake in the State of the Union, the repeated claims by Bushco that Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda despite the fact that they couldn't even conjure up fake evidence to indicate that, a memo nobody is disputing to be true that has the head of British intelligence commenting on how the Bushies made up their mind to go to war in early 2002 and were fixing the intelligence around that decision - I mean, all of this utterly undeniable evidence, and still people say shit like, "I don't think they were lying. They just had bad intel and maybe fudged the facts a little."
How long can people simply ignore the existence of unrefutable evidence?
__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'" |
05-22-2005, 09:09 AM | #67 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
Then I will *shrug* at you, and not care anyways. I will then eat some high protein snacks, and play with my child. If the White Sox are playing I might watch the game. You see, while I don't see boogymen under ever rock, nor do I see your 'unrefutable evidence', the fact that you bring up the yellow cake argument is proof to me you use a different definition of 'unrefutable' than I do, I do see the mideast as being an area we need a strong foothold in, and I don't CARE why we did it, I am just glad we did do it. USA 1 Evil 0.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
05-22-2005, 10:30 AM | #68 (permalink) | |
Somnabulist
Location: corner of No and Where
|
Quote:
__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'" |
|
05-22-2005, 10:38 AM | #69 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
Now relax and have some snacks.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
05-22-2005, 10:58 AM | #70 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
interesting that you confuse your sentiments about family and baseball with an argument about the war in iraq, ustwo.
how does this logic work? you say that you prefer hanging out at home and thinking about that to developing informed positions about this matter--so for you whatever the present administration says to justify itself and its actions are just hunky dory--all of which are your choices, of course, and as such are nothing to argue about-----but if all that is true, then why post as if your position--that you like your child and baseball--amounts to anything like a considered, informed argument on the topic of the war in iraq?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
05-22-2005, 03:18 PM | #71 (permalink) | ||
Banned
|
Recent comments posted here remind me of the lyrics of a '60s folksong:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by host; 05-22-2005 at 04:26 PM.. |
||
05-22-2005, 03:47 PM | #72 (permalink) | |
Republican slayer
Location: WA
|
Quote:
Just curious. |
|
05-22-2005, 05:28 PM | #73 (permalink) | |
Cracking the Whip
Location: Sexymama's arms...
|
Quote:
Tedious is the correct word. People know the rules but some seem unwilling or incapable of following them.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate! |
|
05-31-2005, 12:23 AM | #74 (permalink) | ||||
Banned
|
A followup news report from the U.K. newspaper that broke the "Downing Street memo" story.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
policy). Last edited by host; 05-31-2005 at 01:02 AM.. |
||||
05-31-2005, 01:36 AM | #75 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
And... a draft of a new letter to Rumsfeld from John Conyers, ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee:
Quote:
|
|
06-23-2005, 07:10 AM | #77 (permalink) |
Bokonist
Location: Location, Location, Location...
|
I wanted to bump this back to the forefront of discussion, mainly because I am amazed that it actually happened.
Here is a link to the actual memo: http://downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html I am not sure how this is still being swept under the rug of the media? Politics, to me, is dead. When I was a child I loved the idea of the American government, now I am just a disillusioned adult who feels that there is no truth in any political system. I personally was taken in by the lies before the war, and I am ashamed of it. Once it was proven that the justification for war that was sold to the UK and US public was a lie, I lost all respect for Bush. I retained some shred of respect for Blair, as I felt that his case for war was slightly different and he did not directly deceive the world...Today is a sad day for me, becuase I now have lost my respect for Blair as well. What a bunch of lying, conniving bastards. Why is the American public so apathetic? Do they feel that they cannot change anything or do they truly believe everything that the US government says??
__________________
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way." -Kurt Vonnegut |
06-23-2005, 07:16 AM | #78 (permalink) | ||
Bokonist
Location: Location, Location, Location...
|
Quote:
The US and UK governments do not deny that the things outlind in this memo transpired, nor will they discuss it. http://downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html#validity Quote:
__________________
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way." -Kurt Vonnegut Last edited by zenmaster10665; 06-23-2005 at 07:24 AM.. Reason: reformatted |
||
06-30-2005, 07:45 PM | #79 (permalink) | ||
Cunning Runt
Location: Taking a mulligan
|
Quote:
Link Quote:
|
||
07-01-2005, 12:37 AM | #80 (permalink) | |
Bokonist
Location: Location, Location, Location...
|
Quote:
This is the same person who stood in front of us and stated "Iraq has WMD" and "Britain could be attacked within 45 minutes." I don't see anywhere where he refutes the fact that the memo is correct, he simply says it was "taken out of context."
__________________
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way." -Kurt Vonnegut |
|
Tags |
administrators, facts, fixing, iraq, memo, secret, top |
|
|