Originally posted by JaTo:
Can you prove the truth behind the memo? Can you prove that George W. Bush intentionally and without a doubt lied/covered up and doctored/falsified actual intel that the CIA used to prove it's case?
No, I'm reiterating why the case for war was made, who made it, [etc.] ...



You are dancing around the issue, JaTo. Of course there are arguments for the war. We already have covered that ground very well in previous threads.

But you are, as always, dodging the point. See how you dove straight for your old arguments in favor of the war (i.e. Saddam's violation of the UN resolutions provided a legal basis for war) even when we are discussing an entirely different issue (the new British evidence that the Bushmen deceived us about the facts and about their intentions)? That tells me you can't refute the real point of the article: the Bushmen deceived America to build support for their war.

What the hell kind of evidence would it take for you to see that Bush and his cronies lied and deceived and manipulated to whip up support for their war? A top-secret memo from a reliable partner is not good enough?

The memo clearly says what the Brits thought of the grounds for war (thin) and it says the Bushmen were bending the facts and intel to justify their desire to go to war (i.e. lies and deceit and legal violations). So far, you haven't even acknowledged that the memo has any meaning at all. That speaks volumes to me (it's called denial).

Originally posted by JaTo:
...though it doesn't surprise me in the least why most of this escapes you. Factial history seems a thing of convenience, a mere contrivance when you have a man doing his damndest to make his own viewpoint jam into a chronology that he particularly doesn't care for.



Huh?

Originally posted by JaTo:
Again, prop up some proof on the falsification charge, not some vague references or notes made on a napkin . . .



Arrrrrrgh! Like PDXSVT said, you think Rumsfeld is going to go on Larry King and tell everyone what really happened? Of course not. We are not going to get that kind of proof anytime soon.

And since when is a top-secret British memo (and other supporting documents) a freakin' "note on a napkin"? This new evidence is extremely credible. It shows that responsible allies thought Bush was fomenting support for a hugely unpopular war by deceiving us and manipulating us. Aren't you just refusing to see that?

Originally posted by JaTo:
. . . that are most likely being stretched to their believeable limits to facilitate yet another round of sensationalism. "Journalistic integrity" these days seems to approach the level of being the next oxymoron, so you'll have to pardon my intense doubt and almost laughable disdain for this particular "piece".



OK, so you say the article is not good journalism. Next time, you might want to tell us why you think so. I know; smearing someone's work is fun, and it takes all the fun out of it if you have to give a reason.

Originally posted by JaTo:
Don't wet yourself in anticipation of impeachment hearings anytime soon and here's why:

Flash back to the mid 1990's. The US had plans drawn up to invade Iraq during the Clinton administration. SURPRISE! Hell, they were a carry-over from the Bush, Sr. administration. Guess what? The British were in on some those plans (or war games, I should say) as well, since they were a part of the coalition that held the "no fly" parallels over central Iraq and would have been, at a minimum, logistically involved in any ground campaign.

Flash forward to post 9/11: Washington was taking a more aggressive note at this time across the board, I might add. Iraq certainly wasn't the only nation on our "sh!t list", though it garnered the most attention due to the fact that we had been actively engaged in getting a FULL and UNENCUMBERED disclosure on their WMD capability for close to 10 years.

The fact that Washington's tone of understanding and patience towards Iraq drastically changed after 10 years of UN buffoonery and ultimately the ongoing security concerns that 9/11 introduced to the minds of Americans doesn't surprise me in the least. I would be absolutely appalled if we didn't take a MUCH harder stance and line towards regimes that positioned themselves as rogue nations that had WMD capability. I would be immensely disappointed if ANY administration would have not stepped up plans for a possible invasion and I would have labeled any administration abject idiots for not planning to position themselves politically and ideologically as best as they could in pressing their case for war on the international stage, whether or not they actually planned to go to war.



Again, we are not discussing whether it was a good idea to go to war. I understand your reluctance to address whether the conduct described in the British memo is an impeachable offense, because it's a no-win situation for the Bushmen. That memo cannot be spun to make Bush look good. In fact, it shows the Adminstration did just what I always said they did: they fooled millions of Americans into supporting the war.