Kevin --

Just exaplain to me in all your linguistic precision why Rycroft didn't just write:

"The policy if being fixed around the intelligence."

Let's look at the sentences side by side:

"The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."

"The policy is being fixed around the intelligence and facts."

Now you are telling me that these two sentences mean the same thing?

It depends upon what the meaning of the word is means.

-Pres. Bill Clinton, 1998

Kevin
I am from the UK. It is quite common to "fix" a time for a meeting or a date or anything else for that matter. Matthew Rycroft doesn't just say this, everybody says it.
His meaning of "fix" in the DSM however is exactly what everybody thinks it means here.
While your investigative study is no doubt commendable, "that dog don't hunt" unfortunately applies to your analysis.

His meaning of "fix" in the DSM however is exactly what everybody thinks it means here.

Guess we can all go home now...

Even if you use the word "set" in place of "fixed", it is still damning!

I have never thought that intel was being fabricated or made up (except from curveball and other defectors). They used (and misused) intel to sell the war and refused to disclose the volumes of exculpatory evidence that would refute the intel used for the pre-determined policy. If that is not "fixing the intel around the policy", it is its twin brother!

HELLO?

Replace 'fix' with 'set' and it STILL means the same thing!

C'mon, Let's you and I read whole sentence with the word 'set' replacing 'fix'

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD, but the intelligence and facts were being set around the policy."

You notice that little word in there 'but' ?

If you wanna justify removing Saddam over weapons of mass destruction BUT the intell has to be 'set around the policy,' the use of that word BUT still means the intell doesn't support the policy.

That's why you have to 'set' it or 'fix' it beforehand.

That's still putting the cart before the horse. Don't you get that yet?

In order for the memo to mean what you want it to mean it would have to say:

"Bush wanted to find out if we needed to use military action to remove Saddam over Terror and WMD, and intelligence and facts shall being gathered to find out."

The memo just doesn't say that. It says intell is being fixed to fit the policy to JUSTIFY a desicion that was already made. That word 'justify' that Rycroft used is crucial too, and it is echoed later on in his memo when he wrote:

"If the political context were right, people would support regime change."

I mean how much more crystal-clear does it have to get?

Is this all they've got? Splitting hairs over the meaning of one single word in a memo?

No wonder this 'story' is going nowhere.

>Replace 'fix' with 'set' and it STILL means the same thing!

Nope, sorry, wrong. Let's step back a second. I deal with conditional logic all the time. You know how common this mistake is? It's so common we train for it because the users make it ALL the time.

>C'mon, Let's you and I read whole sentence with the word 'set' replacing 'fix'

>"Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD, but the intelligence and facts were being set around the policy."

This means that intelligence and facts were being gathered to support removal of Saddam. Just as one would have EXPECTED at this time. We already had military plans in the works, and so too was intelligence gathering already ongoing.

Nowhere does this say that ANY decision was already made. And this is why "This dog won't hunt".

Jim, I guess it now depends on what "policy" means. If you assume that Bush's policy was the one adopted by Congress in 1998, then it seems to me that you're saying

...the intelligence and the facts were being SET around REGIME CHANGE.

If you agree, then it would seem to me that you would also agree that Bush lied about the reason for going to war, which is what this is all about.

Kevin,

You are suggesting that the sentence containing the word 'fixed' is the only interesting thing about this memo.

How about this beauty:

"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. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."

- B.

Go to C-Span and watch the press conference Bush and Blair gave yesterday. There is no question of the authenticity of the memo. What was said at that meeting was said and notes were taken. That's that. I am personally encouraged that Bush was not foolish enough to believe that Iraq was responsible for the actions of 20 Saudis in New York. I have always thought that was obvious anyway. A preset agenda on the part of the administration is not news. There were no WMD's because there couldn't be with our 12 year embargo that crippled their economy. The only weapons they could have had are the ones we sold them. And there would be no alliance between Al Queda and Sadam Hussein. Other than speaking the same language, they have nothing in common. Saddam was a secular leader, Bin Laden is a religious nut. They wouldn't even speak the same dialect of Arabic. With out a preset agenda there was no reason whatsoever to go into Iraq. Many have said it before from Richard Clarke to Victoria Plame & co - many people who were present and in the know.
So for the "old dog" cliche, how about "Denial is not a river in Egypt". Just accept it and move on.

I'm starting to wonder whether you are falling into a Neocon trap. If you continue down the path of examining a single word, the ultra-right will dismiss your accusations with a chuckle.

The only way to resolve this problem is to focus on persuading the author of the memo to appear before Congress and tell us what he meant. Then invite G.W. Bush to appear before Congress to explain his actions.

Focus your energy on persuading Matthew Rycroft to tell us about this memo, preferably via some respectable channel.

What can we do to make this happen?

R Bers is right to point out this quote. Bush decided to invade Iraq long before he admits to havings done so, but had to sell the idea.

It's obvious that the way he sold it was to scare the hell out people with visions of mushroom clouds and pandemics. A classic Leo Straussian vision of the confrontation of good and evil, i.e., "axis of evil" and "those evildoers".

Those neoconservatives can slap each other on the back for having sold the American people a pile of shit.

The "smoking gun" crowd reads the word "fixed" conspiratorially to mean "doctored," as proof that intelligence was altered (or invented) to justify war.

Nyet. The "smoking gun crowd" is not saying that intelligence was doctored int he way one doctors a photograph; altering it to put something there that is not.

The smoking gun crowd is saying that this sentence suggests that Bush used intelligence to support decisions he had already made, rather than to inform decisions he was making currently.

Which it does.

This means that intelligence and facts were being gathered to support removal of Saddam. Just as one would have EXPECTED at this time. We already had military plans in the works, and so too was intelligence gathering already ongoing.

Cough. No, not what one would expect. One would expect intelligence to be gathered so that one could create a plan of action, not so that one could push one's chosen plan of action.

Nowhere does this say that ANY decision was already made. And this is why "This dog won't hunt".

Except where it says "Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action"?

We all know that the decision to invade Iraq had been made months before the invasion. We knew it then and we know it now.

What I don't get is why wingnuts like Kevin don't simply stand behind that and say, "So what?" It looks foolish parsing a single word like "fix" to manufacture yet another denial of something everybody knows is true.

You're much better off sticking to the story that you like Bush because he is a man of action. A bald-faced liar, of course, but a liar who doesn't pull his punches.

You might as well just hand the Liberals this one if you can't do any better than that.

The typewriters, when were they made? Were they IBM selectric? The fonts, stupid! The kerning!!

Not some twisty stupid illogic about the British using words to mean different things than we do. Jeez, you're embarassing all of us, that's so weak.

Jeez, you're embarassing all of us, that's so weak.

It's so weak that he's even embarassing us liberals!

"Conspiracy theorists can move the goalposts all they want, but when the chair of the meeting (Blair) says intelligence was not "fixed" "

Talk about moving the goalposts. What the hell would Blair know? I thought the minutes were third or fourth hand anyway. Now all of a sudden Blair is your go to guy for what Bush was thinking in July 2002? A few days ago you and Robbins were saying that all the British had were "impressions" and "hearsay." Indeed, that no one had asked Bush first hand what his intentions were. Now Blair knew them all along?

Moving on, Michael Jackson says he's innnocent too. The point being that Bush is innocent until proven guilty that's how the system works. But the system also works on the assumption that when there is credible evidence of wrongdoing, an independent invetigation wil be called to get to the bottom of the situation. Ultimately, that's all anyone wants -- expect you and the Republicans. If we can't get and independent investigation into this then the system is broke. You look at account from O'Neil, Woodward and Clarke and say oh the minutes are old news. But wait, a second, that's at least four separate accounts that suggestion Bush decided to lead this country to war long before he told us he had and that, once he decided this, he wasn't going to look at any evidence that suggested war was not necessary or useful. Oh sure he'd go through the motions of going to the UN but once inpsectors were back in Iraq and doing their jobs, all Bush did was complain about and confound their efforts.

On top of all this we learn today that a White House official regularly changed scientific findings to support the administration's environmental policies. Sounds like fixing the intelligence around the policy to me. Could someone please tell me why these things don't add up to a pattern of deception and denial, how they aren't symptoms of an administration that is out of control?

"Is this all they've got? Splitting hairs over the meaning of one single word in a memo?

No wonder this 'story' is going nowhere."

NO you are not a punidt yet because it is the right wing that's splitting hairs over the word. Everyone else on the planet knows exactly what the sentence means.

Which brings me to my question for Jay Tea. Hey Jay, if you love language so much how can you not chastise Kevin -- and so many others here -- for their hamfisted attempts to undermine meaning in this case?

"But the intelligence and facts were being set around the policy."

Please Jay, for the love of language make them stop.

What an useless argument.
As stated in a previous fantasy war: "It's over Johnny. It's over!"
Nobody likes a looser.
If Bush II had won his war this would only be discussed by historians.
Nobody likes a looser.
His war, his plan, his generals…
But to get back on topic, I agree with previous post by *frameone* regarding the structure of the sentence.
"The policy if being fixed around the intelligence."
Let's look at the sentences side by side:
"The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."
"The policy is being fixed around the intelligence and facts."
If I could change international policy by saying:
The policy is being set around the intelligence and facts, I would.

This is a copy of a previous post regarding Kevin's appearance on C-Span regarding this same topic.
Downing Street Memo

Kevin
Saw you on C-Span.
Too bad you didn't have a decent argument.
1. 1998 policy of US to get rid of Saddam. True
What is not stated is that the policy called for using Iraqis.
2. WMD…all intelligence agencies believed Saddam had…True.
-No invasion was planned.
-N Korea and Iran had demonstrably larger arsenals.
3. 9/11…Bush et al continually linked 9/11 to Saddam and Iraq.
Emotions rule…the country was mad and wanted a target.
4. Saddam's atrocities…
Check policies of previous admin's…Reagan and Bush I.
They had more contact with Saddam than al Qaeda did.
5. Democracy…what a great guy Bush is, spreading democracy.
Unfortunately he's doing it with lies and other people's kids.
6. OIL…??? Absolutely not.
What a canard. Oil is only the primary concern of US foreign policy.

Think: OIL…OIL…OIL…

Clearly, none of the Neosocialists on here have read past that one sentence they're harping on.

Loser. Loser. Loser.

The f'n word is LOSER.

Not looser. NOT LOOSER!!!!!!!

If I see one more comment with the word loose or looser, I'm going to go f'n CRAZY!!!!!

The last line of Kevin's post is the logical and sensible approach. Why not ask Rycroft what he meant. Of course it really won't matter to most, what Rycroft says, if he does speak. Depending on which side of the issue one falls, they know what he meant and what he says he meant is of no importance.

I'll wait to hear from Rycroft, and will believe what he says, since to the best of my knowledge, Matthew Rycoft has never lied to me.

Stop sleeping with your cousin.

a4g
many grammatical apologies…
I have yet to read any convincing arguments regarding Bush's status as a loser.
Nor have read any convincing arguments regarding whether policies should be set or fixed by the intel…or if the intel should be set or fixed around the policy.
If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?
Not if it's a republican tree.

If that wasn't enough of a reason to go to war what about these.

Provided by Bush II:

For those who just can't get enough excuses as to why Bush II took us to war just follow with the policy ping pong ball.
As provided by:
http://www.rojisan.com/blog/2004/12/21_reasons_to_invade_iraq.html
21 reasons to invade iraq

with a nod to devon largio recently of the university of illinois, and via foreign policy, i direct your attention to the chart included in this story.

between september 2001 and october 2002, george w. bush, dick cheney,richard perle, colin powell, condoleezza rice, donald rumsfeld paul wolfowitz, tom daschle, joseph lieberman and john mccain came up with no fewer than 21 reasons to go to war with iraq. the foreign policy article gives you a handy graphic representation. i'm going to put them on the text record here:

1. to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
2. for regime change.
3. to further the war on terror.
4. because of iraq's violation of united nations resolutions.
5. because of saddam hussein's evil dictatorship and actions.
6. because of a lack of weapons inspections in iraq.
7. to liberate iraq.
8. because of iraq's ties to al qaeda.
9. because iraq was an imminent threat.
10. to disarm iraq.
11. to conclude the gulf war of 1991.
12. because hussein was a threat to the region.
13. for the safety of the world.
14. to support the united nations.
15. because the united states could (easy victory).
16. to preserve peace around the world.
17. because iraq was a unique threat.
18. to transform the region.
19. as a warning to other terrorist nations.
20. because hussein hates the united states and will act against it.
21. because history calls the united states to action.

F-the fixed or set debate.

I must agree that for either side to hinge their collective stand upon the word "fix" is relatively weak. That said, there are three things about the "Downing Street Memo" that I have yet to see addressed.

First, the memo is, essentially, no matter how official it may look, a subjective interpretation of the events of the meeting in question. It does not appear to be any formal account of the meeting, not being nearly detailed enough to be the actual "minutes" of the meeting. Further, the "smoking gun" passages consist nearly entirely of subjective assessments, and devoid of verifiable information.

Second, there is much talk in the memo of WMDs, and more than a few references to Saddam's UN sanction violations. For the same people to be pushing the "buzzwords" in this memo as are repeating the "Bush Lied" mantra with regard to WMDs is absolutely absurd.

Thirdly, but possibly the point of greatest import, is the fact that the memo is marked confidential. If that is the case, the silence about the memo's validity from Blair (Bush couldn't be in a position to know) could very well be due to the memo being incomplete or inaccurate. To challenge its contents would essentially make necessary the disclosure of the actual documentation that would disprove the memo (i.e. the actual minutes of the meeting, if any exist), documents which are most assuredly still classified as a matter of national security.

It's a nonissue. The memo, regardless of your political convictions is anything but "hard evidence" one way or the other. It may not be accurate in the first place, but even if it is accurate to some degree, it may be read to say either too little or too much towards either stance. For example, was Saddam a threat or not? The memo says yes, and that any military action should be tempered with the knowledge that WMDs would likely be deployed by Saddam. Was military action fairly certain at the time of the memo? Yes, the memo makes clear that not only is regime change necessary, but that the change would only come through military action.

Herein lies the reason why the memo doesn't play in the MSM. When taken in its entirety, it reflects presuppositions about Iraq that don't mesh well with the idea that "Warmonger Chimpy McBusHitler" was wrong to attack Iraq. If anything, it indicates that the UN sanctions were pitifully inadequate to keep Saddam in check.

Frame, I can't believe I'm actually falling for your baiting, but you've given me a chance to indulge in one of my favorite activities -- quoting Winston Churchill.

"The United States and Great Britain are two people divided by a common language."

One of my favorite stories about the English-English language barrier is a meeting between American and British negotiators. Both sides wanted to discuss a certain issue, but a huge row developed because the British used the term "table" to mean "put on the table for discussion," while the Americans took "table" to mean "to set aside to discuss later.

From the outset, I fixed on the word "fixed" and pegged that as the Achilles heel of the whole "memo scandal." It was the classic tempest in a teapot.

And Fran, I've always believed that there were numerous, often overlapping reasons why going to war was the right decision. What's your problem with that? Where is it written that there must be a single, overwhelming, unique casus belli?

J.

We all know that the decision to invade Iraq had been made months before the invasion. We knew it then and we know it now.

Bullshit.

It was known years before. So what if it was? Albright's goal was to do the same for Milosevic - which was also the right stance at the time.

"Clearly, none of the Neosocialists on here have read past that one sentence they're harping on."

The minutes clearly state that the British understanding of American policy in July 2002 was that Bush had decided war was the only solution. The entirety of the minutes to follow records a discussion of the feasability of the American war plan and the best way to create political cover for it. I'm not sure what else you're talking about.

As for Robbins' challenges: What challenges? Not only is his argument all over the map the ultimate crux of it still depends on his own hamfisted argument about the meaning of "fixed."

First he argues the "Big Deal" line suggesting that, well, we all knew Bush wanted war anyway. Then he argues that, well, the minutes are all hearsay so we don't really know what Bush thought, only what the head of British intelligence thought were Bush's intentions, essentially attacking Dearlove's credibility, as if his job isn't to find and out and know what other leaders are thinking.

But then he goes back to the "Big Deal" argument suggesting that we knew regime change was the policy of the United States but that this doesn't mean Bush had decided war was the only way to achieve that aim, as if critics were confusing the two. Except the only one confusing the policy of regime change and what's in the minutes is Robbins.

Then he gets into the details of British war planning, as evidenced in the minutes, and their attempt to find political cover for an invasion which, the British attorney general, clearly beleived was on shaky legal ground no matter what argument could be made for it short of direct self-defence. Robbins praises the cunning British political maneuvering -- goading Hussein into a breach of UN resolutions -- completely ignoring his earlier argument that the British were apparently formulating their policy based on hearsay. Not very bright chaps if that were the case. Of course, it wasn't. The British were forumating their response to what they knew was the American position. And they knew it for a fact. Otherwise, why go into such detail? Of course, Robbins flat out ignores the fact that Hussein did allow the inspectors back into Iraq and that Hans Blix reported he was receiving the necessary co-operation from the Iraqi government. Robbins also fails to note, as do most of the neo-cons, that UN resolution 1441 clearly states that another vote of the UNSC was necessary to sanction an invasion of Iraq. We all forget that Bush and Blair blew right past this requirement suddenly declaring the UN irrelevant, that they had all the authorization they needed and then forced the inspectors to withdraw from Iraq so they could begin their invasion.

Put it all together and the minutes are pretty good evidence that Bush had decided to go to war in 2002 and that only intelligence which supported that decision would be taken into account. That's reason enough to begin an independent inquiry into how intelligence was used for political reasons to make the case for war.

"The United States and Great Britain are two people divided by a common language."

Jay --

For the love of God, for the of language, for the love all you claim to hold dear, please, please tell me that you're joking. We're not talking about fish and chips here. Even if "fix" is taken to mean "set" that doesn't change the meaning of the sentence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Even if "fix" is taken to mean "cement" or "glue" or "nail" or "congeal" the sentence means the same damn thing. I don't care if there are people arguing it means "fixed" as in the "the fight is fixed." That argument is irrelevant. Even if we take "fixed" in the sense of "I fixed my broken bike" the sentence still means pretty much the same damn thing:

The policy of going to war with Iraq was established before anyone did anything with the intelligence or the facts.

No one has yet to explain why this order of events is a good thing. Robbins says this happens all the time in Washington but does that mean it's a good idea to decide a course of action and THEN go out and figure out if it was a good or the right course of action?

At the very least, deciding to go to war first may have colored the way in which the intelligence and facts were gathered, fixed, set, cemented, decided upon. You know, a predispostion to look for the things that support a decision already made -- regardless of what other information is out there. At the very least, might the existence of an a priori filter on the president's thinking explain why he fell for BAD INTELLIGENCE?!?!?!?!

Please, Jay, for God's sake, I know you know that this sentence:

"But the intelligence and facts were being set around the policy."

Means the exac