Smoking gun

So if a smoking gun fires in the woods and nobody bothers reporting on it, does it still prove the president lied?

Eight months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq -- when President George W. Bush was still publicly saying things like "We're doing everything we can to avoid war" -- Bush had already predetermined that the invasion would occur. The case for war, however, was recognized as "thin" since Saddam Hussein was not an actual threat to the U.S. or to his neighbors. The evidence regarding his weapons of mass destruction and alleged links to terrorism, the selected rationales for the invasion, would have to be "fixed" in order to justify the invasion.

That is the testimony of a top-secret memo prepared for top-ranking British officials on July 23, 2002.

The memo was made public on May 1, 2005, when it was published in the Times of London. Read the entire memo here. Some excerpts:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. 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. ...

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. ...

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult.

I don't have a scoop here. You've probably already read about this elsewhere, although probably not in an American newspaper. Nor do I have a new angle on this story or some deep new insight.

As you may have noticed, I've been a bit slacker than usual in my slacktivism of late. A big transitional project at work meant longer-than-usual hours. That was followed by a new, later late-shift, which has had me kind of jet-lagged whle making the adjustment. At the same time, I spent most of last week rehearsing and immersing in a play that I spent the weekend performing, further cutting into my time for reading and writing. And, of course, on top of all that, I'm a chronically lazy person. All of which accounts for the still inexcusable fact that I didn't post anything about this story -- this huge, historic story -- until 17 days after this shocking smoking gun memo was first made public.

For that I apologize, but let me also note this: The newspaper I work for has still not published a single word on this story. Nor have most American newspapers. I'm a lazy, sleep-deprived, amateur thespian, but I still managed to beat them to the punch on this one. My work-ethic as a blogger lately has been dismal, but compared to the incurious stenography that passes for professional journalism these days, I'm practically Woodward and Bernstein.

That's related to the point Will Bunch makes in this insightful rant at Attytood:

It's amazing how many journalists are OK with being deceived, as long as they don't have to offend anyone. ...

Take the editors of the Washington Post. When confronted with a British government memo that showed that President Bush "fixed" the intelligence on Iraq to make the already-decided case for war, the newspaper did nothing for two weeks, then buried the story -- a story that in a different era, one with more courageous leadership, might be seen as an impeachable offense -- on Page A-18. Odd behavior for a business obsessed with "scoops."

And yet, with so many brave defenders of journalistic purity out there, you would think that newspaper circulation would be soaring. Instead, readership is dropping like a stone, the biggest plunge in almost 15 years. Does anyone truly believe its from a lack of "context?" Of course not.

It's from a lack of cojones, of not only not afflicting the comfortable but knuckling under the first time anyone complains.

Comments

[Dahne]

So, something that by all rights should be all over the news the minute it comes out and could be considered solid grounds for impeachment passes by with barely a whisper, let alone an outcry, and nothing will ever come of it.

You know, I really wish I could say I was surprised.

[Andrew Cory]

Honestly, this memo is thinner than I’d like it to be, and thinner than you seem to be implying. Let us assert that Bush truly believed that it was in America’s best interest to go to war in Iraq, but was at a loss in convincing Americans that it was so. This memo would then detail the WMD argument as being the one Americans would be most responsive to, and thus the one that the Administration should go with...

What I don’t see here is any sort of statement like “there are no WMDs, we know there are no WMDs. We’re going ahead anyway”. I don’t think we’re going to find that sort of statement, because I think that Bush was surprised to learn about the absence of WMD’s (after all-- Rummy sold ‘em to Saddam)...

What is damning about Bush’s actions leading up to the war was the fact that Bush simply didn’t believe the credible reports which said Saddam had no WMDs, as well as the fact that he pressured the CIA into “discovering” sites that weren’t there...

Also, and this is perhaps most damning at all-- they had no clue how to handle the aftermath of the war, and went ahead anyway. This is what transformed “transitional occupation” into “bloody quagmire”...

[Sophist]

Damned liberal media!

[Davis X. Machina]

It's a $200-billion, 100,000 dead-and-wounded, soul-corroding, Consitution-wrecking, dog-bites-man story.

Bush lied then.
Bush is lying now.
And he will lie again.

But -- and it's a big but -- everyone, even his supporters, know it.

They knew it in 2000.
They knew it in 2002-3, and they know it now.
His fundamental dishonsesty, his utter disregard for the truth, is so well known, that no one notices it.
The fact that the truth simply isn't in that man is, unfortunately, the ultimate non-story.

You'd get more press if you announced that the president had been sneaking out of the White House in the afternoons not to ride a bike but to take CLEP exams, with an eye towards pursuing a second degree after his retirement than if you announce were that he lied us into a unnecesary and pointless war.

It would at least have novelty value.

[Marley]

The State Department had extensive plans drawn up to handle the aftermath of a conflict in Iraq. These plans were ignored. Why would they do that? Good question. It could be arrogance, it could be incompetence, it could be malice.

We provide, through our tax dollars and consent, incredible resources to the US government. Our leaders are supposed to use those resources wisely and responsibly. This country is not George W. Bush's personal power toy. I really don't give a rat's ass what he "believed" to be true. There are facts, and the facts should be driving the decisions.

We are sane when we commit ourselves to reality at all costs. So the reality here is that Bush wanted this war. The facts did not support his desires (or "beliefs" if you like), and so he had some "facts" manufactured. And of course many people helped him and continue to do so.

In other words, he behaves like an insane person. And this insanity has cost thousands and thousands of lives and billions and billions of dollars. I think he is criminally insane.

[Andrew Brown]

Just to pick a nit, it was the Sunday times, not the daily, which published the memo. Unlike American papers (I believe) they have separate editorial staffs. The daily Times is a dreadful paper these days, and one should not give it credibility even by accident.

[Grant D.]

Andrew Cory: While I find it admirable that you're willing to extend the benefit of the doubt - a rarity these days - you're starting from a faulty premise. Whether we should have went to war was not a matter of intelligence, it was a matter of judgement. The memo goes directly to the latter.

[Chad]

To go with Marley was saying, while I do believe, of course, that different agendas led up to the Second Gulf War, I really do believe, after reading biographical information and articles on Bush, that he - probably on a subconscious level - only wanted this war so he could show up his father.

So, yes, I think Bush is criminally insane, as are the would-be theocrats he holds court with.

[Abby]

Hope that the play went well.

I still don't understand why Tony Blair thought it was so important for Britain to be a part of this. He gave it a very thin veil of legitimacy. If Britain had criticized us formally, I think it might have played differently.

[Greyspace]

I think something that's been underplayed is that the memo seems to confirm the domestic political timing. Bush was always planning on going in when he did, and was delaying asking Congress for permission until a month before the elections - when it would be fresh in voter's minds, and he could use 'no' votes to paint Congresscritters as traitors.

Playing domestic politics with war doesn't seem to be news anymore.

[Merlin Missy]

If Britain had criticized us formally, I think it might have played differently.

Or else cafeterias everywhere would now be selling "Freedom muffins," the only thing people would talk about was how we saved their butts during WWII, and the British would be referred to as "tea-drinking sissies."

[Scott]

I've mentioned this before, but can't resist pointing this out again:

2001: Powell & Rice Declare Iraq Has No WMD and Is Not a Threat
We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...
-- Colin Powell

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.
-- Condi Rice

[Thlayli]

As you may have noticed, I've been a bit slacker than usual in my slacktivism of late.

S'alright. Just remember what day tomorrow is....

[spencer]

Slacking in your slackitivism is tolerable from time to time - but never on a Friday.

[spencer]

Andrew Cory -

The problem with your extension of the benefit of the doubt is this line:

But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

In other words, the Bush administration made up their minds as to what they wanted to do, and were (when the memo was written) trying to figure out how to justify it.

That necessarily implies that we were not actually in imminent danger from Saddam and his chemical weapon stockpiles - for if we had been, the facts and intelligence would have led to the policy. Not the other way around.

Even if the Bush junta truly thought we were in danger, policy would have been built around the perceived facts - and again, not the other way around.

[Lisa]

The missing word in this memo is "sanctions." There already was a UN-managed effort to keep Saddam from acquiring WMD through an economic and technological blockade. It appears from the late 2002 inspections that, however leaky, the sanctions succeeded at this goal. (I know, a lot of people believed the sanctions were a humanitarian disaster, but let's face it, we didn't invade to save the Iraqis from starvation).

Reducing the decision to "attack Iraq" vs. "do nothing" leaves out the critical third option of continuing the sanctions and trying to get wavering countries like Russia and France to get recommitted to the program.

[Donald Johnson]

The sanctions were a humanitarian disaster, but oil for food lessened their impact. Lisa is right that we didn't invade to save starving Iraqis, but that rather cynical justification was thrown out by Christopher Hitchens, more as a way to taunt the left than as a serious argument. And as it turns out, malnutrition and health conditions are worse in Iraq now than before the war.

[Drew]

Have we not been watching the news lately?
The reason the sanctions were a "humanitarian disaster" is because "wavering countries like Russia and France" needed "to get recommitted to the program." All oil-for-food did was provided a means for Saddam to stay in power. The sanctions would REALLY have worked had the UN not become involved.

Now before your butts pucker, let me commend this blogspot. It's the first one I've found - from either side - whose residents don't seem to be a bunch of screeching, ranting maniacs. In other words, I don't see anyone akin to either Pat Robertson OR Teddy Kennedy. Most of your commentary seems to be fair albeit slanted to the left. Do you guy mind a little conservative intervention?

And let me add this as someone with internal knowledge as to the workings of the US military...

We have plans for engagement with just about every country on Earth. If there's one thing we do well, it's war. Now, do we intend to utilize any of these plans? No. But it would be criminally STUPID to not be prepared. Anything you see, read, or surmise that leads you to believe that the Presidnet's mind was made up to invade Iraq months or years ahead of time is formed on an extremely limited base of knowledge. The truth is, that the planning for it HAD to occur years in advance, and was done so before he was even elected - probably even before Daddy Bush was elected.

The further truth is that none of us, outside a very numbered few (I'm NOT one of them), has access to ANY of the intelligence that was, is, or will be used to decide on military operations.
To otherwise think that journalists (or anyone else outside the highest ranks) ever have enough data to write a truly accurate op/ed piece on millitary/intelligence operations is not only naive, it's just plain dumb. There is simply not enough information available to the public to make many of the accusations that are formulated by the press.

[Scott]

The truth is, that the planning for it HAD to occur years in advance, and was done so before he was even elected - probably even before Daddy Bush was elected.

The President or other high level govt officials don't get involved in "just in case" planning at the "you never know who we will have to go to war with" level. I'm sure we have a plan somewhere to fight off the Canadian hordes sweeping into North Dakota, and I'm equally sure Bush doesn't discuss that with the cabinet.

[Iain]

Drew, the presumption is that the author of the memo had access to the intelligence, and concluded that �the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.� In any case, one simply cannot have a functioning democracy if the people are not permitted to judge the actions of their leaders. To say that we don't have sufficient information is a cop out. We have a duty to judge them with the information we have at hand.

For what it's worth, at the time I was convinced that Bush was lying about the WMD. As I recall, there was a pattern of claiming that certain things were true beyond the shadow of a doubt, and then when those things had been shown to be false Bush would pretend that it didn't matter because some new thing was true beyond the shadow of a doubt. (I apologize for being vague; this is all off the top of my head, and I am not inclined to research what gave me that impression.)

I think my judgment was pretty good, despite the limited information I had access to.

[Drew]

Exactly my point, Scott. But I think comparing the Canadian hordes to Iraqi terrorists are two different things. Do you think that Iraq was a "just in case" operation? Do think we might have a "just in case" plan with Iran? Or Syria? Or North Korea?
I'm sure the President and other high ranking officials are KEENLY aware of the planning for these more relevant scenarios. I'm pretty sure he's probably discussed them with his cabinet too. Had we invaded any one of these places instead, we would have heard that his mind was made up before well beforehand and is was nothing more than a means of trying to make up for what his daddy couldn't do.

Again, you're missing the whole point. We don't have nearly enough information or access to intelligence to make an accurate assessment of this situation. You're taking little tiny pieces of a gigantic puzzle and trying to tell everyone what the big picture is.

It's very easy to make your case based on one or two lines grabbed from snippets of an interview. These usually turn out ot be spun in either direction by both sides. If you want the REAL truth, take the time to read the Congressional Record or watch C-SPAN. You can't rely on CNN, ABC, Fox, or any other "news outlet" to give you all the information you need to form an inteligent opinion.

[Grant D.]

Ahem. I repeat. The issue turns not on intelligence, but upon judgement. If you believe the United States is not a monarchy, that is.

For all their truths, the Fulbright hearings were not a prelude to action in the only way that could count, a vote against appropriations, so much as an intellectual exercise in examination of American policy. The issue of longest consequence, Executive war, was not formulated until after the hearings, in Fulbright's preface to a published version. Acquiescence in Executive war, he wrote, comes from the belief that the government possesses secret information that gives it special insight in determining policy. Not only was this questionable, but major policy decisions turn "not upon available facts but upon judgment," with which policy-makers are no better endowed than the intelligent citizen. Congress and citizens can judge "whether the massive deployment and destruction of their men and wealth seem to serve the overall interests as a nation..."

The belief that government knows best was voiced just at this time by Governor Nelson Rockefeller, who said on resumption of the bombing, "We ought to all support the President. He is the man who has all the information and knowledge of what we are up against." This is a comforting assumption that relieves people from taking a stand. It is usually invalid, especially in foreign affairs. "Foreign policy decisions," concluded Gunnar Myrdal after two decades of study, "are in general much more influenced by irrational motives" than are domestic ones.

[Drew]

Yes, thank goodness we're NOT a monarchy. As I recall, the second Iraq war began BEFORE the second term of President Bush. The American people had every opportunity to formulate a JUDGEMENT of his actions in his first term. The majority (that's right, the MAJORITY) of them formed a judgment that he should stay in office.

As for the "massive destruction of men" (of which I am one) let's put things into perspective. We lost more men on one morning in in Hawaii in 1941 than we have in the past YEAR in Iraq. While every loss of life - on both sides - is tragic, our side has NOT endured a MASSIVE loss of life.

And finally, Mr Intellectual, you're STILL missing the point.

Let me try to make this clear enough that you can understand. The media outlets are NOT sufficient sources of information. That's right, not even sufficient to make a JUDGEMENT. Read the Congressional Record. Watch C-SPAN. Read the full version of the 9/11 Commission Report. DON'T rely on the stories your see on BBC or read in Time. If you insist on using ONLY those types of sources to gather your information, at least cite equal sources from BOTH perspectives.

And finally, DON'T start trying to make yourself seem like some super intellectual by quoting passages from someone else. Get that lettle hamster in your head spinning fast enough to formulate an JUDGEMENT of your own.

Until tomorrow...

[Greyspace]

Drew, there are more than two perspectives in the world. This is the a great flaw of the he-said/she-said school of journalism; if "neither side" is saying something, it doesn't exist.

I'm afraid it sounds to me like you're endorsing the Britney Spears approach - just shut up and trust the President.

Also, it's very true the military creates a lot of contingency plans. However, we're talking about a briefing from the head of MI6 after speaking with US folks at the Cabinet level. They had a timeline (which included using midterm elections to get authorization for use of force), and no patience with the UN or sanctions.

Finally, the US State Department produced a voluminous report on the Iraqi reconstruction problem. It was ignored, and the participants were systematically excluded from the reconstruction process. This indicates petty infighting between State and Defense - not new, but the sort of thing that Condi Rice should have fixed.

[Scott]

Drew, and the Powell and Rice quotes above enough INFO for YOU to FORM a JUDGEMENT for YOURSELF?

[Marley]

I second Iain's point above that we have no choice but to judge our leaders based on the information WE have. This is true for all administrations. The information being imperfect does not relieve us of our responsibility as citizens. And I think it's perfectly despicable for any administration to take a paternalistic, hyper-secretive stance toward the American citizens who provide the funding and blood for it's decisions. We'll soon be broke at home as well as hated around the world. The deck is already stacked to the rafters in favor of our government, of corporations, of the political donor class. The American people are getting screwed every way to Sunday, and when they figure out to point their anger at Washington DC there will be hell to pay. And the Republicans will be at the head of the line, where they have so insistently pushed and shoved their way.

[Keith]

The problem with Drew's initial assertion, that we have plans to invade everywhere, so it's no big deal that we chose to Invade Iraq, suffers from a basic problem: namely, that the plan in place at the Pentagon for a rational Iraqi invasion was thrown out in favor of one concocted by a bunch of Neocon war gamers at PNAC, who promptly saw 9/11 as justification for their pet goal of transforming the Middle East in their own image. Part of this plan invovled shoehorning size 12 intel into size 8 combat boots. The other part of the problem stems from the fact that our leaders chose to do all this. They didn't have to. They wanted to.

[Grant D.]

The media outlets are NOT sufficient sources of information. That's right, not even sufficient to make a JUDGEMENT.

Well gee, Drew, one would think that as a conservative you'd have more faith in the market. Your contention that only the guvmint has the knowhow to decide whether to go to war sound kind of - dare I say - elitist. Go figure.

At the risk of drawing more of your ire for quoting others, I'll take your advice and cede the floor to a alternative viewpoint - in this case a conservative war hawk:

If an issue of importance is out there, and a consequential choice needs to be made, a citizen can come to a sensible conclusion based on the sort of information available to any interested newspaper reader, and he will be as likely to choose correctly as any member of the National Security Council (or the equivalent policy-shaping body in another democratic society).

What [Ken] Pollack's article demonstrates, is that a modern intellegence apparatus (and no one more than the US) can pile up mounds of data...which don't incontestably support any conclusion. You would be nearly as well off without any of it.

There is lots of data about the stock market. But nobody can call the market short-term, and nobody needs to, long-term (it will go up).

In a way this is reassuring. Debate over foreign policy choices (or any other policy choices) in a modern democracy can proceed among citizens, based mostly on information citizens can reasonably be expected to have.

Alrighty then. So what's the "market's" verdict on the war?

In last month's poll, 59 percent of respondents said they disapproved of the way the president is handling the war. Asked whether the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, only 32 percent said yes. Nearly two-thirds, 63 percent, said it wasn't worth it.

[Lisa]

Returning to Drew's first post, the sanctions were a humanitarian disaster because Saddam, being evil, made sure not to let his people avail themselves of the food and medicine that were indeed available to Iraq under Oil for Food, instead choosing to keep the proceeds for himself. This provided wonderful photo ops of desperately sick or dying children "because of the sanctions." Yes, Russia and France (and Turkey and Jordan, among others) were to blame for the sanctions leaking, but they are not at fault for Saddam's starving his own people.

[Dan Lewis]

I find it funny that Drew both insists on primary sources (C-SPAN good! MSM bad!) and refuses to come to grips with the primary source in this discussion: downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html. For heaven's sake, the head of the British CIA says that the Americans were making up dooty in order to drop bombs on brown people (or was it to destroy bombs? or paint schools? or find freedom? I forget).

Drew says:

Again, you're missing the whole point. We don't have nearly enough information or access to intelligence to make an accurate assessment of this situation. You're taking little tiny pieces of a gigantic puzzle and trying to tell everyone what the big picture is.

Drew, maybe Sir Richard Dearlove was in a better position than you to tell everyone what the big picture is. This memo was supposed to be secret. Neither the Brits nor the White House deny its authenticity or the content. How reliable does the source need to be before you accept the awful truth that George W Bush deliberately lied to the American people, twisted the intelligence that he did have to his own political purposes, and as a direct result, thousands of people have died?

[burritoboy]

Drew,

Stow the bullshit. The director of the British Secret Intelligence Service (also called SIS, or MI6) - at that time Sir Richard Dearlove - would not discussed theoretical plans with the US National Security Council. "C", or Sir Richard Dearlove, a lifelong senior intelligence officer, could hardly have been mistaken as to what was about to happen - the document names imminent dates and timelines.

This document was produced after a Prime Minister's Meeting on July 23rd. The document indicates that a full-detail plan would be presented to the US Vice-President in just over a week, and to the US President within two weeks. The strength of the British intelligence's belief that this was correct information is testified to in that Francis Richards, CDS, is directed to prepare an extensive report immediately (by the end of the week). Also, the Foreign Secretary promises to discuss the implementation details with Colin Powell - note that the Foreign Secretary wasn't in any doubt about the overall situation but wanted Colin Powell to give him more tactical details.

The conclusions both within the document and the conclusions we can draw from the document are unmistake-able. The British have (and had) vast access to US intelligence, high-ranking US government officials, US military sources, and so on. There is a formal intelligence sharing agreement, so MI6 can "see" much of what the CIA Director or NSA "sees". They could not have a highly divergent idea of what the US was doing and thinking than the US did, since they were talking directly and frequently with the highest level of US decision-makers.

This isn't a newspaper article. This is a top-secret report by an aide to Tony Blair about a meeting of extraordinarily high-ranking members of the UK government, and was distributed to those very same persons - i.e. it is impossible that this report would be substantially wrong, since the readers would be reading about their own comments made earlier that day.

[Marley]

Drew, you seem to think that people you encounter here rely on the MSM. Without speaking for others, I doubt that is the case. Yeah, but thanks for the tip you smart conservative, you. I mean, who knew???

[Andrew Cory]

Spencer: (to me)

The problem with your extension of the benefit of the doubt is this line:

But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

In other words, the Bush administration made up their minds as to what they wanted to do, and were (when the memo was written) trying to figure out how to justify it.

I guess it hinges on what “fixed” means in context. I am reading fixed as “it was fixed in concrete”. You (and everyone else here) seem to be reading it as in “the fight was fixed”. No matter how you read it, they were either incompetent or evil-- the outcome is the same either way...

[Wakboth]

"It could be arrogance, it could be incompetence, it could be malice."

I'm personally betting on a combination of all three.

I sympathize with you Americans. It must be terrible to live in a situation where the best-case possibility is that your leaders are "merely" criminally incompetent idealogues.

[Drew]

Hi, gang. I'm back. I hope I'm welcome. I've thoroughly enjoyed reading your responses. I'm here for the exact reason I've been stating this whole time - to get a different perspective. I've been able to do just that, so I thank you all for it. Not that my mind has been changed...

For my new friend Marley, please refer to my first post where I say this is a rare liberal site that is pretty fair in its views. I appreciate that and I commend you for echoing my sentiment.

Some of you guys got the point at the outset. The original poster himself said he didn't have a scoop. Another said "this memo is thinner than I’d like it to be, and thinner than you seem to be implying."

It wasn't until after these posts that I felt inclined to get my 2 cents in. When I read things like "Constitution-wrecking", "grounds for impeachment", and "Bush lied" being written as a result of that memo I get bothered enough to opine.

It's THESE people who are jumping all over a memo that proves nothing about GW lying in regards to Saddam's WMDs. THAT'S where I take exception.

So, Dan Lewis, I feel accurate in saying that that memo doesn't say that "dooty" was being made up. What the memo DOES say is that the "guvmint" was using only selected bits of intelligence in making its case for the invasion. There's a substantial difference between fabricating intelligence and making your case based only on selected elements of intelligence. Oddly enough, this goes back to support another of my original assertions that we don't have all the intelligence we need to make a fair judgement.

Greyspace makes a great point in his/her first line and I couldn't agree more. And along these lines, I appreciate the comments made by Wakboth. It IS terrible to have only 2 people to choose from. It was heart-wrenching to see that the best the Democrats were able to come up with was John Kerry. I was hoping to have at least ONE good option from which to choose. So, at the risk of getting further off the subject, my one true hope for my country is that someday soon a true, viable third party comes along to offset the excesses of the other two.

But I digress...

And, Grant, I DO have faith in the market, but NOT in the print or broadcast media. The outlets I cited are NOT articles, opinion pieces, or news broadcasts distributed by the government. They are unedited records of government activity. You have to wade through the crap of what the politicians are saying there, BUT at least you are able to get speeches and legislation in their entirety.

Thanks again, guys. Hopefully I'm still welcome here.

[dave]

Drew, if your president really believed that Saddam had WMDs, why did he have the troops marshal in Kuwait, within easy striking distance of these things?

[Drew]

You make it seem as though they've been marshalling there only since Bush took office.

In reality, they've been there since the first Gulf War. They've also since been in Qatar and Bahrain, and were in Saudi Arabia until the summer of 2003.
But this is off the subject.

[Marley]

Drew, could you please clarify something...

You say above that the people of this country formed a judgment that bush deserved a second term. I infer you think that was a good judgment. But then you go on to say that we cannot form an accurate judgment of his actions because the MSM provides us with seriously deficient information. I am a little confused how anyone's judgments can really be sound by your description. You may agree with the bush voters, but we cannot say they have exercised sound judgment by your own standards. Votes for bush could be nothing more than luck and manipulation. Nothing to brag about, really.

The Downing Street Memo has scarcely been reported in the news. Anyone who has read it must be supplementing their information with other sources. So it seems that people who visit sites like Raw Story, Antiwar.com or IMTV (just to mention a few) as well as reading blogs and watching CSPAN would be much better informed than people who rely solely on the MSM. I think the subset of people who are well informed and support bush is probably very small. I wonder whether you would be in that subset if you weren't military.

[Drew]

I was about to give up on this site, but Marley has revived my first impression that you guys are logical, intelligent, and well informed thinkers. I'm not saying I think I'm smarter or better than anyone else. Far from it. But I do think I am in the relatively small subset to which he refers. I get the impression most of you guys are too, which, I guess, is what attracted me to this site in the first place. And, I will concede, I probably would NOT be in this subset if I were NOT in the military. But being that I AM in the military, I am privy to information and insights that you might not be. I saw the devastation to military morale caused by the Clintons. They disgraced our service. I could see a similar, if not worse, disdain for the military in the persona of John Kerry. In my own humble opinion, the President's most important job is to protect the people of our country. We, in the military, are his means of doing that. Kerry, in my opinion, would have been horribly inadequate in that regard - yes, less so than Bush.

To address Marley's statements simply, I agree with them. I hate to think of anyone being "lucky" to be able to claim President Bush as their leader. And, believe me, on the instances in which I travel to other parts of this big, beautiful world, you'll never hear me "brag" about "our beloved President Bush". I'm not going to rifle through all my previous comments, but I don't recall mentioning that I'm a supporter of the President. What I will certainly NOT do is make claims that he's a liar, a criminal, or evil.

I certainly won't do it based on the Downing Street memo. Yes, most of you seem pretty well informed from other sources, but there is a substantial number of you who are so desperate for the President to fail that you'll look to a little memo like this one and call it a smoking gun. I applaud those of you who feel it's a bit of a stretch to label it such. You folks obviously are arming yourselves with other knowledge.

But those of you who are SO excited about it and are saying it's enough evidence for impeachment...you're not helping your cause. You're as far off your rocker as any far right wing evangelical nut.

[Devon]

Drew,
Downing Street memo: Is it a smoking gun? No, not really. But it's another piece of the puzzle. It's another nail in the coffin. And I don't think a rigorous examination of the evidence could show that neither the President nor anyone in his administration lied in the lead up to the war. Will he ever be impeached for anything he's done? No, not with this Congress. But I don't know if he derserves it or not.

Military morale: I am not in the military, nor have I ever been. My father served in Vietnam, and my brother was in the Navy. That said, I have a hard time believing that 1700 flag covered caskets and thousands of injured soldiers are good for morale, especially given the equivocation and outright deceipt employed by this administration in justifying an unjustifiable war. I can't speak to the effect Clinton had on morale, or the actual state of morale right now, but if President Bush has a genuinely positive effect thereon, then I have to ask why. It makes no sense to me at all. Could you explain it to me?

[Marley]

Drew,
I think the most important thing I can offer you is the possibility that people who aren't military can love this country as much as you can. My mother grew up in Germany during WWII. My grandmother used to tell me that this was the greatest country in the world. She loved this country more than she loved her homeland, and knowing the other stories she told me about the war, it meant a lot. Americans planes strafed my family with bullets, and they fled to the basement with air-raids, and came upstairs to find dead people on the streets. Yet still, the good this country did far outweighed the destruction we wrecked. So I take very seriously the balance of our deeds in the world, because they affect my own children and all children.

While I absolutely respect the military; it cannot be the North Star of this country, or we are lost. That is why the founding fathers, in their wisdom, gave our military civilian commanders. This impulse to wage war must be controlled with exquisite skill.

I am not a soldier like you, just a citizen. But it makes me sick to know the suffering inflicted on and caused by our soldiers, because it is done in my name. And my children will pay for it on top of the current suffering, and that pisses me off mightily because they are innocent. What a waste.

Who wastes a good country like this? George W. Bush.

[R.Mildred]

I personally believe that inadequatly supplying the troops is also pretty bad for their morale, but hey! I'm not in the white house so what do I know...

[drieux just drieux]

I do hate to bog down a good idealogical diatribe and all. But we have already been through the 'impeaching a president while congress was funding the bombing of nations abroad' - it was the clinton impeachment. So it would not be the first time the nation has had an impeachment while we were More@War than before.

What is amusing in Drew's Argumentum Ad Populum is the comedy that he really should bolster his postion with the poll numbers that at one time more than 63% of americans actually believed that we had found the WMD's in Iraq. So of course the president should have won on those numbers. The tragedy is that he won by such a thin margin running against a truly lame liberal who's best idea was to imply that perchance we might get a draft that would allow the Chickenhawks to follow their lip flappings into action.

Now that americans are starting to get it that even the DOD can no longer keep singing a happy song about 'our time in Iraq' - and that we will probably still be there in 2006+ as the 'dead enders' in Iraq seem to consider the idea of an invading force that is still functionally in Occupation, even if a possible government has been formed around some quislings, might be reason enough for a nationalist to take up arms against the occupation force.

But does anyone really care about the death of the American National Guard and Reserve System? It's not like any of them need a National Guard Unit, since if there is ever a disaster such as a flood, earthquake or other national disaster the president will clearly be able to get the UN to send in peace keeping forces. I mean it's not like americans really care about their 'all volunteer force' that is augmented by a bunch of economic dead-enders who couldn't negotiate a better compensation package and get one of the high paying jobs as a contractor.

Come on folks, let us be honest here for a moment.

[Drew]

I swore as I left work on Friday that I was done posting in here. My wife made me feel guilty that I stirred you guys up, so I figured she was right as usual and I'd stick to conversing with like minded individuals.

But like a bad car wreck, I had to look back one more time.

And I'm sorry I did. Now I feel obligated to answer some of these comments.

I'll specifically answer R. Mildred's question first - you obviously know very little about supplying the troops if you believe the crap you're seeing on the nightly news or reading in the press. I'll tell you from personal experience that we're equipped just fine.

Devon, pretty good post. Your last line is a tough question to answer either verbally or in print. A simple answer might be that many of us were just happy to be rid of the Clintons. They showed us a lack of respect and some would even say disdain. President Bush seems to genuinely respect the job we do. Does he really? Only he knows for sure, but he at least says and does the right things by us. If you're truly interested in the Clintons' effect, read "Dereliction of Duty" by Buzz Patterson. It's just one man's opinions and observations, but it will at least give you some idea as to how many military personnal saw his administration. And as for the casualties, every life lost hurts. But I can assure you - we know the risks going in. For you who aren't DIRECTLY affected by these risks, it is quite bothersome for you to make your case against the war and citing the loss of our troops in doing so. When you say such things you diminish the sacrifice these people make. And, ultimately YOU are the type of person who comes across as unappreciative and is the real detriment to morale.

I don't even really want to address drieux's comments because he shows such a gross lack of knowledge that he needs to hear some facts. The US reserve forces currently make up 45% of the entire US military. If you really want to know all the figures as to the role the reserves and NG play, check out this link...
http://www.defenselink.mil/ra/documents/rc101/rc101.pdf
Now to give out more personal info than I really care to, I AM a reservist. I am also an engineer. I live quite comfortably on my "compensation package", thank you. The TRUTH, driuex, is that MOST of the guard and reserve do NOT need the extra money. Many of us aren't paid at all. WHEN we are called to duty, we regularly take a pay cut when we deploy. We do our job so that the uninformed, like yourslef can sit around watching TV with your finger up your nose thinking that we only show up in times of natural disaster. To put it bluntly, driuex, you are an abject moron, and have absolutely pissed me off.

***Sigh***

To the rest of you, I am truly sorry for my outburst. I offer drieux's gross lack of knowledge as another exhibit as to why I started commenting in this thread in the first place - get your knowledge from somewhere other than TV. But, again, many of you alreaday seem to do so.

Which brings me to marley. Spot on as always, my friend. You're the type of individual I'd love to chat with over a few beers. I'm right there with you until your last paragraph. All this time, I assure you, I've been serving to try preserve freedom and security for ALL our children, especially my own. You've every right to feel that what we do is a waste. But, I must admit, it's a little painful to know you feel that way. Still, I've nothing but respect for your opinion as it is obviously one formed from taking the time to arm yourself with knowledge from credible sources.

Which, dammit, is what I've been trying to get across from the beginning.

Drew, who will hopefully come back to read this post,

I'm not going to respond to anything in your post. I just want to say that even if you don't post as often, I hope you continue to lurk. It's much better for us all in the long run when we interact with people we disagree with, rather than staying in the safety of like-minded cliques. Those cliques are certainly important for us, but we need to venture out into the fray so that we might learn to actually live with each other, rather than simply near each other. Being near but not with breeds divisiveness, and that leads us down, not up.

I've been in your shoes before, been the minority voice, both on the internet and in the real world. It can be quite trying. If we can all keep our composure, be patient and kind, accept the possibility that we might be wrong, and try to first understand what the other is actually saying, then perhaps we can engage in more meaningful and valuable discourse. That will breed community, and that leads us up, not down. I can hope, right?

Here's to Drew, and all who venture into the fray.

[Marley]

Drew, it's not that what you do is a waste, it's that bush wastes what you do. Maybe it's all the same to you; but I see a clear distinction since he has the power to declare war, and we don't. He has abused his authority.

I wish you well.

[Drew]

Thanks, guys.

The point of me coming in here in the first place is to try to get a different perspective. I certainly have, and I learned a lot from you guys.

I'll probably keep "lurking". We don't grow if we confine our minds.

Thanks, again.

[amlongo]

DEMAND THAT BUSH IS IMPEACHED NOW. CALL YOUR REPRESENTZITIVES NOW!!! We can use the Patriot Act to size his assets and all the people who have helped cause this unjust war, and stop them all in their tracks. It will take all of us to call him on his lies and demand our congress to Impeach him and all the government people involved. Then revert all the damage Bush has done to our country!