|
He actually made a few good points. But, unfortunately, it would appear that he has OD'ed on the Kool-Aid. Like I said before, this otherwise brilliant man can't even entertain a notion that is antithetical to his beloved Rightists. Sad, really...
I will let the accepted view of the situation talk for the majority thought. Don't read into anything what you might think. I really believe the only people that know the truth will not let it out. I don't always support what Bush does, says or thinks but I do support the conservative agenda or low taxes, individual rights and keeping the government out of my life. 50-90,000 massacred Iraqis was good enough reason for me, with WMDs I might add. Your must fix you case for publication in any thought process but as I said I will let someone else's writing put down the other viewpoint. Always two viewpoints in any matter and probably even more. Why do you think fixing means lying? I would be there is a fixing of facts for Iran, N. Korea, and other countries written down as we speak. We have to have whatever facts we have ready and whatever options we have ready in case of a problem. Do I agree on how we went to war and how it was presented- No. Do I believe it was the right thing, Yes. There are other areas in the world that also pose a problem to my kids and grandkids and hopefully we can take care of them without war, but Sadaam was in breach of the law and was killing people. Sorry, but I would have shot the SOB before he even got out of the hole. Here is the other interpretation. I really don't think any US president would put our guys in harms way without some very good reasons that we may not find out until history and all the history is written. War is not good and in some ways I agree with your viewpoint and I am sure the truth is somewhere in the middle. Just remember all the absolute documents that were found on Bush during the election, which is about when these papers came up. They are probably true but what do they mean, I think we all depend too much on personal interpretation instead of what they really mean.
The memo offers nothing at all, whatsoever, as evidence of lying to start a war in Iraq. Impeachable offense? :rofl: To whom? Saddam? He's the only one.
The only thing said by David Manning is that "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" which implies military action, since Manning doesn't fully explain it. And of course, this could imply a HUGE gamut of meaning, from illicit to noble.
After that, there is NOTHING to detail exactly what that statement means. So we're left to interpret. Certainly although the MSM is trying to beat their collective drums to gin up "lying", this in no way whatsoever translates to "fixing."
"Fixing" could be anything from lining up the facts (and notice Manning did say "facts", not "lies" or "half-truths", etc). This could be nothing more than making a concerted presentation to justify the war with a minimum of WMD evidence. "Fixing" to me in this memo comes out as nothing more than "arranging" a view, but one which is by no means fabricated or based on a willful lie.
Furthermore down the memo, the declaration is that the case was "thin". But notice what it did NOT say - the case was "nonexistent" or "entirely unjustified". The memo also states that Saddam's WMD capability was "less than Libya, N. Korea, or Iran" yet of course offers no proof of this; but in any event, even this statement attests to a WMD capability. Of course the memo mentions nothing about why we went to war in the numerous violations of the UN resolutions that Saddam had commited (which history will rightly note was the basis in Powell's briefing before Congress... he spent far, far more time numerating these than the one statement of WMD's... his assertion was that Saddam was an "imminent" NOT "IMMEDIATE" threat), yet the MSM doesn't seem to get that part. Powell NEVER said that Saddam was an immediate crisis!. In fact, the entire basis for going to war was to stop him before he becomes an immediate crisis!. Jeez, how stupid are people? We lost 3,000 people here because we waited too long and assured ourselves that the terrorists "really wouldn't be so bold as to"... we were wrong. Never again. So, nothing false there.
The numerous interpretations of such things as "timeline", where Bush said they had none, yet the MSM shouts about starting the war 30 days before congressional elections, is weak. "Timeline" means a chronology for the entire war, not when it starts nor finishes. This is a bad, agenda-driven error (of course) by the MSM.
This memo says nothing of value except one person's opinion. There is nothing in the memo to elaborate on "fixing" nor give detailed reasons why one might even for a second consider lying... there is nothing. The rest of the memo goes on to outline the events leading up to briefings, etc. for the war but is simple declarative outline of events and facts, not related to the "speculative" paragraph above.
It's obvious to see why the Downing Street Memo isn't worth a page 190 in U.S. newspapers... because it has nothing to offer except for one person's speculation and not much to back it up. Whoop de do.
However, I will say that Rush (and many others) said well before the 2004 election that if Bush won, there would be at least one serious attempt to impeach him out of sheer hatred. Since Bush didn't even come close to even thinking about considering even for a fleeting moment anything impeachable, they'll have to trump something up like speculative memos to try.
Any suggestions for a counterargument? I know that I vowed to quit after this time, but I just can't let him fall totally into the dark side. Sigh... Why wasn't I born in Europe?
MojoXN
|