« Let's *Really* Compare U.S. Soldiers to Nazis | Main | The New Truth Laid Bear »

Conyers To Hold Downing Street Memo Stunt

Rep. John Conyers, as predicted here 10 days ago, will hold one of his patented "fake hearings" on the Downing Street Memo Thursday afternoon at 2:30 p.m. EST. Pay no attention to the fact that the witnesses list is lead by the same lead witness (John Bonifz) who presented at his Ohio vote-rigging "hearing," or that Conyers will trot out Valerie Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, who can regale the "hearing" with tales of yellowcake and book sales. Luckily for Wilson no members of the Senate Intelligence Committee will be present to bitch-slap him again. Given the lack of reporting about his cratered credibility, Wilson probably sounded like a great witness to Conyers.

At Conyers Ohio vote-rigging "hearing" the witnesses even addressed him as "Mr. Chairman," though one suspects he will have counseled his new stooges that tomorrow's stunt is neither an official meeting of the House Judiciary Committee nor an official hearing, and that in any event he is merely the ranking minority member of the Committee that's not actually meeting.

What a handful of C-SPAN3 viewers will be treated too is a bunch of Democrats, many of whom are members of the Judiciary Committee attempting to hold a hearing without the Chairman and majority members. Given the moonbat factor I suspect that every member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (note their website is hosted by the lone Socialist in Congress - Rep. Bernie Sanders) will find a way to get some face time.

Undoubtedly they'll fail to mention this:

Prewar British Memo Says War Decision Wasn't Made - [NYT]

The second Downing Street Memo, which is a briefing paper for the meeting the original memo captured minutes of, states not once but twice that "no political decisions" to invade Iraq had been made. Of course they'll probably argue that the briefing is superseded by the memo (are you dizzy yet) so no attention should be paid to the briefing. They'll ignore that the chief of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service's (Sir Richard Dearlove, noted as C in the memo) quote from the original Downing Street Memo, "Military action was now seen as inevitable," was characterizing his impressions of the opinions of US intelligence officials he had recently met with. They'll also ignore the fact that, other than providing intelligence, those officials Dearlove met with were uninvolved in the "political decision" making process.

And Conyers, et. all, will wonder why their fake hearing receives scant attention...

Prior Downing Street Memo coverage.

Update: They most certainly won't be talking about the Editorial Board of the Washington Post saying:

AFTER LAGGING for months, debate on Iraq in Washington is picking up again. That's a needed and welcome development, but much of the discussion is being diverted to the wrong subject. War opponents have been trumpeting several British government memos from July 2002, which describe the Bush administration's preparations for invasion, as revelatory of President Bush's deceptions about Iraq. Bloggers have demanded to know why "the mainstream media" have not paid more attention to them. Though we can't speak for The Post's news department, the answer appears obvious: The memos add not a single fact to what was previously known about the administration's prewar deliberations. Not only that: They add nothing to what was publicly known in July 2002.
And they're not the only ones saying that there was "no there, there" - see Kinsley and Kurtz for more of that.

Update 2: They surely won't be discussing Fred Kaplian's analysis of the Downing Street Memo (and all the other memos) at Slate. Exactly how many mainstream liberal media institutions (NYT, WaPo, Slate, etc) must debunk the DSM obsessed bloggers assertions? Go back to the quote from the Fox News article about this being a test for the liberal blogosphere if you're wondering who should be worried. Today's "fake hearing" leaves the DSM issue precisely where the Ohio vote-rigging story is, nowhere. Much of the media has bent to the will of the left and issued mea culpas for not reporting on the story initially, but by and large they've also noted upon examination of the DSM story that there's hardly even a bit of smoke (let alone fire) to the story. Many liberal bloggers have made this their ship and seem intent on going down with it. If that's their choice so be it - we're just interested observers to the non-story story...


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Conyers To Hold Downing Street Memo Stunt:

» In Search Of Utopia linked with It's NOT Going Away...

» In Search Of Utopia linked with In what must be HORRIBLE News...

Comments (68)

I notice the last entry has... (Below threshold)
Wendigo:

I notice the last entry hasn't got a little comment box.

And the reason we have that data? Paperclip.

Off... the... deep... end.<... (Below threshold)

Off... the... deep... end.

The truth hurts.... (Below threshold)
rdboyda:

The truth hurts.

Your kidding me right? You ... (Below threshold)

Your kidding me right? You just cant take one sentence and twist it to fit into your distorted logic. All of the new documents that came out since DSM corroborate what was said in the DSM. They already decided on going to war and they were looking for a politically acceptable excuse to do what they wanted to do.

The entire context of these memo's point to a deliberate deception to fool the public into accepting an illegal war.

Deal with the fact that our government is hopelessly corrupt, and use your talents to let your readers realize that they need to think twice about who it is they are voting for.

I'm sure this will be gripp... (Below threshold)

I'm sure this will be gripping television, if presented in Conyers' trademark monotone. The guy makes Patrick Leahy sound like Jesse Jackson by comparison.

The problem here is that th... (Below threshold)
Michael L.:

The problem here is that the right-wing will dismiss the DSMs out of some misguided devotion to the “red team,” while the hard left-wing (tho, few of the politicians, so far) will jump on this out of devotion to the “blue team.”

We have to stop this kind of politics. We’re Americans first!

The fact is that the DSMs represent further evidence that the Bush administration “fixed” facts and intelligence around policy resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of people, including over 1,700 American soldiers.

This should, if true, outrage anyone who cares about this country and about our standing in the world.

What is needed, therefore, is an investigation and hopefully Conyers can get the ball rolling on that.

We need to do the same thin... (Below threshold)
yellow dog dem:

We need to do the same thing we did during the Nixon years... pray! "Dear God, before you get Bush, get Chaney first." It worked for Nixon and Agnew - it can work again.

There is a "deep throat" in the White House right now just gathering enough information, and the courage to act. We need to pray for them too.

Where is the outrage... (Below threshold)


Where is the outrage that the so-called weapons of mass destruction had absolutely nothing to do with why the Bush Administration wanted to invade Iraq?

The Bush Administration was not deceived about weapons of mass destruction: the Bush Administration did the deceiving.

This is the most intelligen... (Below threshold)
Webster:

This is the most intelligent thing I have read on Downing Street. Kinsley is no friend to Bush either, just a very bright guy.

http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-oe-kinsley12jun12.column

Wow, your blind eye to the ... (Below threshold)
Brandon:

Wow, your blind eye to the truth couldn't be more evident. Absolutely incredible. I'll only point out one fallacy in this virtual basket of untruth you have woven on this forum. Your claim that the 2nd memo disproves the first is just silly. It does the opposite. You use a quote from the memo to prove your point:

Wizbang: states not once but twice that "no political decisions" to invade Iraq had been made.

DSM: Although no political decisions have been taken, US military planners have drafted options for the US Government to undertake an invasion of Iraq.

You are quite semantically challenged. You got the "no political decisions" part right, but you got the "made" part dead wrong. The real word from the memo is "taken", as you can see above. In the English language these two words mean completely different things. Thanks for playing though. Maybe next time you'll uncover the first monkey's eyes and the second monkey's ears and take in some real truth. You can leave the 3rd monkey with it's hands over it's mouth, you've already said enough.

Bush has lied from the star... (Below threshold)
Mark:

Bush has lied from the start about weapons of "mass" destruction, ( though DU weapons are commonly used in Iraq as well as napalm), he lied about Saddam's ability to cause us trouble, he lied about every pretense he's made for this act of agression, These memos may be a small part of this but they fit right in with Bush's plot. If those who are responsible for the security of our people, our constitution had been paying attention and stood up to this silly excuse for a president, we would not be in that mess in Iraq.
I think this guy needs a lesson in common sense, but then some just aren't capable of learning.
impeach the damned chimp.

It's pointless to attempt d... (Below threshold)
bear in the buckwheat:

It's pointless to attempt dialogue with the right because they have no humility. When Johnson figured out the wickedness of Viet Nam, he did the prudent thing and chose not to participate in the 1968 election. When Carter was rebuked, he left office and devoted his efforts improving the fate of the impoverished.

What does the right do? They defend to the last a manifest destiny to screw everyone until the bitter end for gains to be enjoyed by the privileged few. It is a tragedy that they are so successful in being able to garner the legions they do with their hollow promises of bounty for the faithful. It would be a small concession that their tactics and intent only effected the willing, but their footprint dooms not only those calling for reason, but the innocent young who have no ability to redress.

Shame on you who support such egocentric and destructive pursuits.

It's amazing (and disturbin... (Below threshold)
Peter:

It's amazing (and disturbing) how Bush-haters can read something in nothing (the DSM), and see nothing in something (Select Committee On Intelligence, the 9/11, Butler, Kay and Duelfer reports).

Dearlove, referring to the ... (Below threshold)
Hunter:

Dearlove, referring to the statement "Military action was now seen as inevitable," is according to Wizbang, "characterizing his impressions of the opinions of US intelligence officials he had recently met with."

Taking that to be true, how is it that the DSM does not show US administration predetermination to go to war?

Oh, and let's have the WA P... (Below threshold)
Peter:

Oh, and let's have the WA Post's 3rd paragraph do the talking some more:

"One observation in the memos is vague but intriguing: A British official is quoted as saying that the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Yet it was argued even then, and has since become conventional wisdom, that Mr. Bush, Vice President Cheney and other administration spokesmen exaggerated the threat from Iraq to justify the elimination of its noxious regime. And the memos provide no information that would alter the conclusions of multiple independent investigations on both sides of the Atlantic, which were that U.S. and British intelligence agencies genuinely believed Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that they were not led to that judgment by the Bush administration."

Those pesky facts always get in the way of the moonbats fun.

"War planning" or planning ... (Below threshold)
Peter:

"War planning" or planning for a "military option" and "predetermination" are two entirely different things.

Sure, the US and UK probably "predetermined" that SOB Hussein wasn't going to cooperate with UN Inspectors without military pressure. So? Who didn't know that? And who didn't know that Hussein likely wouldn't comply with the inspection process which would lead to, what, another UN Resolution? How many should we have given Hussein? 17? 18? 24? 32? Do I hear 41? Send him to bed without dinner, maybe.

What IS your point regarding the DSM, BHers? You still don't have a legit beef even 3 years later.

Truth is truth. It is the e... (Below threshold)
Randy Gomberg:

Truth is truth. It is the exact time form place and event. Opinion or subversion or twisting of facts is not truth. You cannot confront evil and, apparantly, truth.

Randy: Form a coherent sent... (Below threshold)
Peter:

Randy: Form a coherent sentence first (i.e., see you first sentence), then make a point without being obtuse and vague.

The cat is definitely out o... (Below threshold)
Michael L.:

The cat is definitely out of the bag, now.

Anyone who continues to believe that the Bush administration did not deceive the American people in order to attack a nation that posed no threat is just a slave.

A slave to what? Facts? His... (Below threshold)
Peter:

A slave to what? Facts? History? Logic? I'm sorry I was paying attention since Gulf War One when Saddam Hussein repeatedly violated UN Resolution 687 (17x, no less), murdered Sunnis by the thousands, collaborated with multiple terrorist groups (yes, al Qaeda, too, please see the 9/11 report for evidence), starved his own people and children, and was bombed into cooperation not once, but twice (with the second yielding unverifiable results because Clinton didn't allow the inspectors back into Iraq) under the Clinton Administration and God knows what else he was doing in the 4 years of ZERO inspections Being a good little dictator, right?

And you still want to say you were deceived? Only if you weren't paying attention.

Hey guess what! There is no... (Below threshold)

Hey guess what! There is no evidence that shows that Hussein collaborated with terrorists. It would not have been in his best interest to collaborate with terrorists, since he ran a secular government and terrorists are generally islamic extremists. Catering to terrorists would only have opened the door to greater instability, and there is nothing a dictator hates worse than not having complete control of his empire.

There is nothing in any of those "inquiries" that definatively states that Hussein collaborated with terrorists. He was not guilty of any U.N. resolutions that Israel, Great Britain, and the U.S. are not guilty of themselves. There are plenty of dictators around the world right now that make Hussein look like a boyscout, some of them are U.S. allies. There is one thing that sets Hussein apart from all the other potential regime change possibities. His country is floating on a sea of oil. Wonderful, precious, sweet crude that will drive our economy and run our big, deadly, military machine. You like history? Read some history about why it is Hitler invaded Russia, knowing it would be a failure. Read about why Empires, when faced with depleting resources, wage war to access those resources.

Im not saying that we intend to steal Iraqs oil. We just want to be able to buy it. When every other country begins to show diminishing returns on oil production, which is right around the corner, Iraq will be in the position to sell crude at top dollar. To whoever they want. Hussein would be be raking in cash hand over fist, and he probably could have been flexible enough to say I dont want to sell to the U.S.

So maybe Hussein was a threat after all. The problem is that he was not a threat for the reasons that we were told that he was a threat. The real reasons are probably much more scary. Just remember that war is never waged for noble purposes such as spreading liberty and democracy. Or for freeing an oppressed people. At the root of every war you will find that money and resources are the basic cause.

For those of you who dont believe me that global oil production is reaching a critical phase do some research on Hubberts peak. There is plenty of very accurate a detailed information about peak oil production on the internet. Each day that goes by, I become more convinced that that is the reason we are in Iraq, not some goddamn U.N. resolution.

Essentiall, the argument by... (Below threshold)
Stever:

Essentiall, the argument by the Washington Post's editorial page, which enthusiastically supported the Iraq war, and other media outlets, is that because everybody already knew that Bush was a LIAR about prewar intelligence, the DS memos add nothing new. Clearly, however, the DS memos futher solidify the Bush administration's fraudulent words and actions that led this country into an unjust war. As articulated so well by www.mediamatters.com:

"the fact that it became conventional wisdom that Cheney and Bush were manipulating intelligence to bolster their case for war does not negate the significance of the head of British intelligence reporting the same thing based on his conversations with U.S. officials.

The analogy to President Clinton bears repeating: By the Post's reasoning, if independent counsel Kenneth Starr had produced definitive evidence that President Bill Clinton had committed perjury, the Post wouldn't have reported it because many Americans already believed it to be true. Does anyone really believe the Post would have ignored such a story?

The Downing Street Memo raises important questions that are most decidedly not "old news" and need to be asked. Among these questions reporters might consider asking are the following:

The Downing Street Memo relates discussions about Iraq between Richard Dearlove, chief of British intelligence agency MI6, and Bush administration officials. Presumably, the head of British intelligence would have met with senior administration officials. With whom did Dearlove meet? Who told him that military action was inevitable? Were these officials also making public statements indicating that the administration had not decided whether to invade?

Exactly what did American officials tell Dearlove that led him to conclude that the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy?

The memo states that in early 2002 the administration had begun "spikes of activity" -- i.e., increased bombings of Iraq -- to pressure Saddam Hussein. Documents recently released in Britain showed that the Royal Air Force dramatically increased bombings of Iraq during 2002, presumably in concert with the United States. Was the intent to goad Saddam into a military response that could be used as a pretext for invading Iraq?

The memo states, "No decisions had been taken, but [the British Defense Secretary] 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 Bush administration began to make the case for war in September 2002 because, according to White House chief of staff Andrew Card, "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August." Were the November 2002 elections part of the calculation on the timing of the invasion?

According to the memo, "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." How does the administration square this with its multiple, unequivocal statements on Saddam's supposedly terrifying arsenal of weapons?

During their recent joint press conference, both Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair denied that the decision to go to war had been made by the summer of 2002. Yet no one has disputed the memo's authenticity. So were U.S. officials lying to Dearlove, telling him that war was a foregone conclusion when it wasn't? Was Dearlove lying to Blair about what he was told? Both possibilities seem absurd, yet someone somewhere was not telling the truth: either Dearlove, the American officials with whom he met, or Bush and Blair. Which is it?"

For Kevin, or whoever poste... (Below threshold)
Mike:

For Kevin, or whoever posted the Memo Stunt thread,

At least 122 members of Congress signed the letter that John Conyers hand delivered to the White House. If you consider that a stunt, then you really don't belong posting commentary on, well, anything really.

For everyone commenting on this absurd thread,

It's great to see such a huge response to a pile of nonsense. Keep fighting, and hopefully we'll be rid of Bush soon.

"Keep fighting, and hopeful... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

"Keep fighting, and hopefully we'll be rid of Bush soon."

Yeah! Let's all keep it up, and we'll be rid of him in as soon as 3.5 years. Otherwise we'll be stuck with him all the way until the end of his term.

And if we want to get rid of Bush, don't call him a liar. Or say he lied.
Instead, we should remember to call him a LIAR. And remember to say he LIED. The all caps REALLY LOOKS IMPRESSIVE.

Heh, 122 Democrats would ne... (Below threshold)

Heh, 122 Democrats would never collaborate on a stunt, now would they.

The democrats are just look... (Below threshold)
sue:

The democrats are just looking for something to use to impeach President Bush.

Everytime they come up with a new conspiracy theory they hype it up, and declare over and over again that it's going to "BRING BUSH DOWN". Of course their language is a little raunchier.

First it was the Plame affair, and then Gannon/Guckert. Then when it doesn't pan out (because most conspiracy theories/much ado about nothing charges doesn't don't pan out), they'll whine that Bush got away with it yet again and if only the MSM weren't in the Republican's pocket they would investigate and take down Bush.

Pathetic

Hi, Peter. I’m so... (Below threshold)
Michael L.:

Hi, Peter.

I’m sorry, but you are demonstrating slave-like characteristics.

There is plenty of evidence that George Bush wanted war with Iraq and the reasons had little to do with 9/11. (And deep down in your little heart, you know it.)

So, face the truth, Mister.

You’ve been duped. You you’ve been had. You’ve been horn-swaggled!

It’s not your fault and you owe these politicians nothing. But we all need to stand up when we’ve been lied to by politicians concerning WAR.

Yeah Bush wanted his war wi... (Below threshold)

Yeah Bush wanted his war with Iraq for a whole lot of reasons that had nothing to do with 9/11 - Saddam's failure to abide by a string of Security Council resolutions, failure to abide by the accords of the first Gulf War, daily attacks on our planes, an attempt to assassinate his father, continued slaughter of his own people, etcetera and so on.

Only leftists suffering from selective memory loss maintain that the war was only about 9/11.

Ha , jason and the rest o... (Below threshold)
Rob in LA:

Ha , jason and the rest of you losers dream on , why don't you impeach that lying fraud Jon Fraud Kerry . You retards are a disgrace to the human race . You should be admitted, you people must have been hypnotized or something , your from another planet. Democrats are synonymous with lying , cheating , election fraud , corruption etc. what are you stupid or what . I laugh at you , if you stood before me I would laugh even harder.Your all traitors , liars and losers. Sore losers , mad as hell because you lost get over it . Clinton was a fuck up admit it , he did it to himself , don't you asses remember .CLINTON SAID HE DID IT BECAUSE HE COULD. Grow up or drop dead. Your a disgrace to this nation , the world does not revolve around you and besides your just fricken stupid civilian. What the hell did you people lose ??? Not a dam thing . Hell I voted for Clinton both times you shit for brains . Stop putting our troops in danger and stop trying to make shit up just cause someone told you not to like Bush. Guess what they lied to you too about John Kerry being smarter Than Bush , Well your own party lied to you too aren't you mad. Bush is a hell of alot smarter than Kerry , has a higher IQ and he the President of the United States. So there. Kerry got 5 D's HA one in pol. sci. . I always asked why do you say Bush is dumb?? not one person has ever been able to answer. You should feel dumb for being a Democrat. I voted republican nov.2 2004. first time . never again for the traitor liars election stealing democrats.

Wow man, seriously, that my... (Below threshold)

Wow man, seriously, that my friends is a RANT!

LOL I can't believe you pe... (Below threshold)
Rob in LA:

LOL I can't believe you people exist some of the stuff "you believe" has me rolling my god you people need help . Oh I hope they get that Bush this time ,Ha ha your too much . Put an end to all this . You don't like being called dumb and stupid then wake the hell up and open your eyes, I did. You are being lied to by your own Party and I know some of you know it and don't care. To you I f-off and die , burn in hell and all that stuff. Now for the one's who continue to believe the lies being fed to them ,or don't have the time to do research and find the answers and the facts and truth on your own like my mother and aunt , It's not your fault . I not expecting my 75 yr old mother to just pull a Kerry and Flip Flop, I love her regardless. WHAT PISSES ME OFF IS THAT THEY ARE STILL LYING TO MY MOTHER , DEMOCRATS AND THE LEFT WING MEDIA.tHEIR IS NO SUCH THING AS RIGHT WING MEDIA.dEMOCRATS ARE THE MEDIA AND THE MEDIA ARE THE DEMOCRATS.REPORTING THE FACTS AND TRUTH IS NOT RIGHT OR LEFT . GLORIFYING TERRORISTS AND OVERREPORTING ONLY THE DEATHS OF OUR SOILIERS "IS BIASED" THIS IS THE SAME WAY ALL OF YOU HAVE BEEN LIED TO FOR YEARS. THE FACTS ARE OUT THERE I FOUND THEM AND YOU CAN TOO ON YOUR OWN . SINCE NOV2,2004 I'VE SPENT 2,000 HRS OF OVER 5,000 SINCE THE ELECTION FINDING THE FACTS FOR MYSELF AND I'VE SURE IF YOUR READING THIS YOU MOST LIKELY DON'T GIVE A RATS ASS ABOUT THE TRUTH AND THE FACTS .YOU ONLY CARE ABOUT WINNING AND LOSING . I NOT ON NO DAM TEAM , I VOTED FOR WHO TELLS THE TRUTH AND WHO IS PROTECTING BE AND MAKING PROGRESS. THEIR IS NO EX-KKK MEMBER IN THE REPUBLICAN SENATE OR AN INTERN KILLER OR A TREASONOUS TRAITOR AND COMPLETE FRAUD OR A CA. Gov. who took 30 million from enron and then paid outrageous power prices after he killed many elderly with his blackouts. Boxer crying on the floor of the Senate "lying" and accusing Condi of lying . where are these people in the Republican Party ??? I dare any of you to find your parties equal on the Republican side . facts only , I can sit for hours and make shit up too. Good luck.

No way ,this is a rant(abov... (Below threshold)
Rob:

No way ,this is a rant(above) only in LA(keeps one from goin postal)

Then kudos to you my friend... (Below threshold)

Then kudos to you my friend.

Michael L:Deep dow... (Below threshold)
Peter:

Michael L:

Deep down in my little slave heart I rely on facts. Why? Because they are hard to argue against.

Not GW or any one in his administration said that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Please, find me a quote, any quote, that states that Iraq was linked to 9/11. Don't worry, you can't.

Was Iraq linked to terrorists groups? You bet your little bleeding liberal heart they were. Please see/read the 9/11 Commission Report and read Stephen Hayes' book "The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America' for evidence of the terrorism connection. And please don't drop the "no formal collaborative relationship" quote on me from the 9/11 report because it maybe one of the most obtuse and contradictory statements made in the report. What did we expect to see? Pictures of Saddam and bin Laden signing papers at Euro Disney? Come on now.

I wasn't duped by any stretch. Like I said, I've been paying attention for 15 years. I damn well knew what was going to happen.

So it nutshell, it all boils down to this: Bush didn't lie; you didn't listen. And your hate and intolerance means you still aren't listening

If you still support Bush, ... (Below threshold)
Dan:

If you still support Bush, you are an accomplice to the crimes that he commits. He shouldn't be impeached, he should put in prison for the remainder of his life alongside every member of his administration. The longer you Bush supporting assholes hang on to your fantasy, the worse your fall will be. Justice WILL be served and the lives of every innocent civilian and soldier will be honored. Suck it!

Stever:Correction:... (Below threshold)
Peter:

Stever:

Correction: "spikes of activity" does not mean "bombing". It means covert operations (i.e., recon work, defining and identifying targets, determining key players whereabouts), but necessarily in lieu of an invasion.

Correction to my correction... (Below threshold)
Peter:

Correction to my correction: Last sentence: "...but NOT necessarily in lieu..."

Dan:

"Bush supporting assholes"? Ah, now there's some real intellectual prowess and reasonable discourse. P.S. You need a hyphen between 'Bush' and 'supporting'; they form a compound modifier of the noun 'assholes'. Just in case you failed English 101, which it appears you did.

So Peter, you'd prefer to q... (Below threshold)
Dan:

So Peter, you'd prefer to quibble over my hyphen and/or typographical insignifigance as opposed to face the truth. OK fine. Pick an argument and we'll have an intellectual debate over it. You can provide me your data from Fox News the Drudge Report and the rest of your fake news resources and I'll provide mine.

Oh and Peter, this is a blo... (Below threshold)
Dan:

Oh and Peter, this is a blog not an English class. If you didn't undertsand the meaning of my message, let me know which part confused you and I'll try to elaborate for you.

Dan:If you actuall... (Below threshold)
Peter:

Dan:

If you actually had a point, I would address it. Impeach your brain, it needs it.

I'm sorry, I mistakenly tho... (Below threshold)
Dan:

I'm sorry, I mistakenly thought that:

If you still support Bush, you are an accomplice to the crimes that he commits. He shouldn't be impeached, he should put in prison for the remainder of his life alongside every member of his administration.

...was a point. My bad.

Peter, you just don't seem to get it. What part of they fixed the facts around the policy isn't clear? Bush and Blair themselves did not refute the authenticity of the DS memo. Besides, this is only one more small piece of a nearly completed puzzle. For many of us, the dots were connected and the truth was apparent LONG before this latest piece of documented evidence surfaced. I don't hate George Bush, I think he's a puppet and a fool. The longer Americans continue to support this charade (remain in denial) the worse the reality will be when it hits you. I don't hate you, I think your a fool and a danger to my country. Is that a point?

No, I guess I really don't ... (Below threshold)
Peter:

No, I guess I really don't get any of your tinfoil-hat conspriacy gibberish. You make one valid point: That this is "one small piece of a nearly completed puzzle". Let me clarify: One small, grossly insignificant, highly overblown, much-ado-about-nothing, 3-year old memo that reveals nothing that we didn't already know—including the hapless, publicity-hog Conyers.

If you and your Lefty cohorts continue to hang your hat on "..fixed around the policy.." then you damn well better make the semantical concession that "fixed', in its proper political context, can also mean to "set", 'establish" or "place". And that is a not so-unusual practice at all. (God, I should just copy and paste this paragraph versus re-writing it every time!)

Even if Bush and Blair don't deny the memo, what does it prove? That they were war planning? OK, so what's your point? As I've said repeatedly in other posts, "what ifs" should be discussed. (The logistics of plannning any succesful invasion on this order are immense and take a tremendous amount of time.) Moreover, given Hussein's past actions, anyone paying attention for the past (then) 12 years, knew that the SOB was going to stall and fillibuster the UN inspectors. So all options were on the table, including military and legal.

Again, have a legitimate, fact-based point, not hot, baseless rhetoric.

P.S. By the way, the examples of how to and how not to hyphenate compound modifiers are in the first paragraph for your benefit.

Bush masterminded a war of ... (Below threshold)
ross blake:

Bush masterminded a war of his convenience ,how many will die,how much money will Halliburton make ,how much money will be stolen from the American tax payers,how much more hatred of America in the Arab world ? High crimes demand the utmost pealty.

Ross:That's even m... (Below threshold)
Peter:

Ross:

That's even more gibberish than Dan. Congratulations, I didn't think it possible.

Man, you Lefites need to dip your toes into the pool of reality.

Peter,We are comin... (Below threshold)
Dan:

Peter,

We are coming from parallel worlds. Your conspiracy theory is my well-documented fact and vice-versa. Do you deny that there were no WMD? Do you deny that the claim that we are trying to liberate the Iraqi people is absurd on its face? Do you deny that the Bush admin has changed its rationale for war at least a half-dozen times? Do you deny that they lambasted Kerry over his assertion that the war was costing upwards of $200b and it is in fact now well beyond that? Do you deny that WE turned a blind eye to Hussein's atrocities when he was at war with our sworn enemy Iran?

I would submit that your problem is not your intention but your lack of factual information. You believe the bullshit that the rightwing echo chamber tells you when they are forced to smear and destroy character in order to cover up their crimes. Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, Joe Wilson, Ray McGovern. These are not left-wing loonies man, they are former Republicans (maybe McGovern wasn't) that refuse to stand by and watch this cabal of crooks tear apart our democracy. You are supporting a crime and the destruction of this country. I implore you to take off the blinders and look for the truth.

Ross:"Bush masterm... (Below threshold)
Peter:

Ross:

"Bush masterminded..."? What a tic, isn't Bush supposed to be an "idiot", "moron" or whatever word of incompetence you oh-so tolerant Lefties refer to GW as being? Make up your mind, please.

Peter,Your ignoran... (Below threshold)
Dan:

Peter,

Your ignorance is closing in on you. This is a rightwing blog and the "lefties" strongly outweigh the wingnuts from what I've read on this thread. A good sign to be sure that people are starting to realize they've been duped. Bush's poll numbers tell a strong story too.

Either go back to your idiot party, wave your flag, flex your muscles, fill your Hummer up and pretend you're a tough guy or go fight the war you so strongly support. Or maybe it's more gratifying for you to fight from the safety of your keyboard. You support Bush and his war? Why are you arguing with liberals? You are the worst breed of coward and hypocrite.

Dan:Yes, Dan. I de... (Below threshold)
Peter:

Dan:

Yes, Dan. I deny you almost EVERY single count of your absurd counts, except the last one.

Count 1: WMD programs were in place (Read: The Duelfer and Kay reports) and active. The burden of proof rested on Hussein, not Bush, the UN or anyone else. And don't give me that crap about how could Hussein possibly account for ALL his weapons, every other country with an active WMD program and arsenal (including the U.S.) can account for (because under Int'l law they have to) their WMD? Hmm? If Iraq was so innocent, and given the Iraqis meticulous nature, how come the destruction of their WMD arsenal and programs was not documented to anyone's satisfaction, including those of Hans Blix? But let's let Rummy (whom I'm sure you love) finish the thought: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. Is at all possible that in the 8 months prior to the war that Hussein moved the WMD arsenal to, say, Syria? (Please see the Duelfer report, which is highly suspicious that this scenario happened.) Moreover, shouldn't you be more concerned about where Hussein's STILL unaccounted for stockpiles have taken off to? Hmm?

Count 2: See the 2002 SOTU for a partial list of the Hussein's atrocities, the 300,000+ dead (and still counting) mass graves he filled, the rape and torture rooms of sick sons. Yes, it was also done on humanitarian grounds.

Count 3: When did the Bush admin. ever change it's rationale for war? The pillars were: WMD, connections to terrorists (plentiful!), humanitarian (reason alone), violation of UN Resolution 687, adopted in 1991 (and violated 16 times thereafter) and establish a democratic toehold in the ME (now THAT was the unsaid part, but big deal). P.S. If the threat "imminent" as you Lefites have notoriously misquoted and misrepresented, then why keep referring to it as "preemptive". If a war is "imminent" as you Lefties say Bush maintained, it can't possibly be "preemptive" now can it?

Count 4: Bush NEVER lambasted Kerry on the cost of war! Where's your quote on this? I want to see it.

Count 5: Rummy visiting Hussein in '83/'84. Let's refer to the official report on why Rummy visited Iraq as a private citizen:

"His trip, and other overtures by the U.S., were necessary because the Reagan administration had decided to assist Iraq in its war against Iran in order to prevent an Iranian victory, which the administration saw as contrary to U.S. interests."

Well, no shit Sherlock. Who was our most wanton enemy back then? That's right, the Soviet-backed Iran. Not Iraq. Granted, we certainly aligned ourselves with a one bad guy, but given the circumstances at the time (the Cold War) there was little choice. Furthermore, no one can sit here with a straight face and tell anyone with a reasonable and rational mind that at this meeting Rumsfeld or anyone else in 1984 could have predicted the future actions of Saddam Hussein in 1988 and 1990-2003. To sit here and say that is the stuff of conspiratorial nonsense that better belongs in an Oliver Stone movie or on the pages of a comic book.

Count 6. Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, Joe Wilson, Ray McGovern. Well, thank God you at least didn't put Michael Moore in here. P.S. Joe Wilson was proven to be a patent liar about his, er, report. Richard Clarke let the bin Laden family leave. O'Neill was not privvy to any security/war meetings whatsoever. And Ray McGovern? One word: Disgruntled.

I implore you to stop your pseudo-intellectual grandstanding, recognize who the real enemy is and put down your liberal dictionary ("cabal').

Dan:Of course you ... (Below threshold)
Peter:

Dan:

Of course you Lefties "outweigh" us; your moral superiority tells you so.

And trust me, I would love to discuss this with you in person, but I doubt I'd get a word in edgewise.

Bahahahaha. The only way I ... (Below threshold)
Dan:

Bahahahaha. The only way I can put it is that you are in denial and you are so deep in denial that I almost feel sorry for you...almost. BTW, you never addressed the reason your shooting off your mouth and not an AK-47?

In one breath you criticize my grammar and in the next you're calling me a pseudo-intellectual. That's friggin hysterical.

"Count 1: WMD programs were... (Below threshold)
PW:

"Count 1: WMD programs were in place"

You've forgotten that the initial justification for war was not about a "WMD program." It was about an imminent threat to the US and Iraq's neighbors. Remember the remote-controlled planes that could drop chemical weapons on us? Or Cheney's statement that we might discover our mistake under a mushroom cloud?

That's not about a "program." That not a valid justification for war. That is fear-mongering based upon false premises, and a revising of the parameters when they are discovered to be false.


"Count 2: See the 2002 SOTU for a partial list of the Hussein's atrocities, the 300,000+ dead..."

Are you aware that there are African countries that far exceed Saddam's record? Why did Saddam's regime top the list for change? (Hint: It's a 3-letter word.)

That's a humanitarian reason if I've ever seen one.


"Count 3: When did the Bush admin. ever change it's rationale for war?"

Several times:
WMD - began as "He has them and is prepared to use them." Slowly became "He wants them and is developing a program."

connections to terrorists - proven false.

humanitarian - only used when all others were proven unsubstantiated.

violation of UN Resolution 687, - Saddam was contained. Several experts, including those from the UN have concurred. When the UN does things the way the US government wants, the UN is valid. When the UN acts against the wishes of the US government, they are marginarlized.


"P.S. If the threat "imminent" as you Lefites have notoriously misquoted and misrepresented, then why keep referring to it as "preemptive"."

To preempt something is to do something to prevent someone else from doing it first. Whether the concern that the "someone else" was actually going to do it is not germane. The Bush administration characterized Saddam's war-making intentions as an "imminent" threat. If that was false, then preemptive action was not necessary. So the onus is on the administration to prove that the threat and its imminence were true.

"Count 4: Bush NEVER lambasted Kerry on the cost of war! Where's your quote on this? I want to see it."

Kerry isn't responsible for the cost of the war. The White House submits requests for funding, and the Congress approves or denies.


"Count 5: Rummy visiting Hussein in '83/'84."

Let's not forget that Osama bin Laden was on our side, too.


"Count 6. Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, Joe Wilson, Ray McGovern. Well, thank God you at least didn't put Michael Moore in here. P.S. Joe Wilson was proven to be a patent liar about his, er, report."

Of course, you have a link to this, right? His report was corroborated by our intelligence services - the same ones that are responsible for identifying national security threats.


PW

WMD programs were in place.... (Below threshold)
Dan:

WMD programs were in place. That's funny, they told us there was an imminent threat. Every bloody country on earth has weapons programs. The Kay report stated that there were no WMD. End of story. Syria? How can you ship what doesn't exist to another country? The weapons inspectors (Blix and ElBaradei) were not finished with the job they were sent to do and the Bushies weren't about to let them finish hence they might make it more difficult to carry out the invasion.

It's about geopolitical power (i.e oil), military bases in the heart of the region that geopolitical power relies on, and the fate of Isreal. To deny it is ignorant, naive, and childish really.

If I met you in person it is likely that I'd beat your cowardly ass. I'm tired of you phony hypocrites, the adults are taking over again so as I said earlier, you can go back to whatever it is chickenhawks do when they're finished arguing GOP talking points. The game is over, you are on the wrong side and when we are looking for people to blame for the fall of American democracy we'll be looking your way.

1. Peter: "Is at all possib... (Below threshold)
Brandon:

1. Peter: "Is at all possible that in the 8 months prior to the war that Hussein moved the WMD arsenal to, say, Syria?"

The answer is no ->http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/26/iraq.main/

2. So why aren't we deploying miltitary to Darfur? That is going on right now, Saddam did the things you mention decades ago. Or maybe North Korea, where the Gov't intercepts our food donations intended for the people and gives it to the soldiers, resulting in cannibalism in some vagabond groups of commoners due to the complete lack of food and shelter. We should probably do something about that since we're so caring huh?

3. Connections to terrorists huh? How about the fact that George Senior was with a Bin Laden the day of Sept. 11th. You wanna talk about terrorist connections? Look to Crawford, TX.

4. The issue with the misquote of money spent on Iraq happened during the debates. Kerry misspoke and said a larger number then what was actually spent. Perhaps Bush himself did not say this, but republican partisans did. Therefore in the next debate Kerry corrected himself.

5. We sold weapons to Iraq, that is why they knew they had them, Rumsfeld has the invoice in his filing cabinet. However, little know that we actually destroyed most of them in bombing attacks back in 91.

6. Wow, bad point here. Richard Clarke was workig for the administration, therefore he was following orders when he let the Bin Ladens leave. This order was handed down from above.

I implore you my friend to just simply consider the other's sides point of view, and ask yourself "Hmm, what if, hypothetically of course, they are actually right on some of this stuff?" Instead of choosing a team and making up your mind before you hear the issue, how about actually reading all available facts, let it swirl around in your brain for awhile, take into account political affiliations and try to put yourself in the minds of the players. Then actually form a real opinion using your own brain. And when you are proven wrong, simply admit you were wrong, and be a man about it. Don't be a Bill Frist. Don't get proven wrong and then when the facts come out, deny it all and then smear the people you proved you wrong. That's stupid, be on the side of facts, period.

You are right about some of this and you are dead wrong about others. Same with everyone on this post. You simply haven't convinced anyone that you are right yet, but you have been proven wrong on some issues, so just admit it.

This is all really a testam... (Below threshold)
Michael L.:

This is all really a testament to the power of political culture.

Peter, and others who support the war, refuse to face the evidence of deception, not out of rationality or a cold look at the facts, but out of a sense of attachment and loyalty to their political culture.

Having said that, I am aware that the same charge can be leveled at many people who are against this war.

Nonetheless, for the reasons mentioned above by such people as Dan and Jason, George Bush lied to the American people when he claimed that he hoped to avoid war.

I'll admit that Saddam was vicious and in violation of UN resolutions. I'll even admit that the US had rational geopolitical reasons for taking him out.

But that does not change the fact that Bush lied to the American people.

If you like, you can argue that a President lying to the American people in order to bring the country into war is sometimes necessary.

I don't buy it, but you can argue that.

Micheal L. & Brandon: ... (Below threshold)
Peter:

Micheal L. & Brandon:

It is pointless, utterly pointless, to talk to you two. Neither of you presents anything even remotely resembling a fact.

Brandon. you seem to get your info from MIchael Moore, and that automatically disqualifies you from any reasonable arguement in my book. Your red herring about Darfur is something that I simply won't chase. Your citation of Clarke and Bush with bin Laden is just flat-out wrong. You refer to a weapons deal made in 1984 that relates in no way to the events of today. Period.

Listen, I voted for Clinton in 1992 and 1996. I voted for Gore in 2000. Hell, I voted for Dukakis in 1988. I have heard your side. I have been on your side. I agree with Dems on many issues. But you're just dead wrong on this one. Dead wrong. You're relying on rhetoric, trumped up conspiracy theories and very little fact. The facts are not on your side.

I won't listen? What about you? I've yet to see any Libs disprove my facts with theirs. Please, give me links from credible and verifiable sources. I promise I'll listen. But until then...

Dan:You remain and... (Below threshold)
Peter:

Dan:

You remain and shall always be an intellectual midget.

I'm not a lib you jerkoff. ... (Below threshold)
Brandon:

I'm not a lib you jerkoff. This is not a black or white issue, you can't be simply right or simply wrong. You don't get that. I think Michael Moore is a left-wing nut case, but he's got a few good points. You on the other hand think that just because he's a liberal makes him inherently wrong. That is how 90% of the country is, either the left or the right, but the truth lies in the middle. Red Herring? Actual genocide in 2005 is a red herring topic??? Saddam hadn't done shit to us since 9/11, had no weapons and posed no imminent threat. So how the hell do you explain sending our troops, who half consist of national guardsmen, to Iraq to battle an insurgency of a post war that did not have to happen, while a real humanitarian issue is at hand and we don't have the personnel to do anything about it. Not that Bush would anyways. Mission accomplished!

I never said you need to listen you dipshit. I said you need to realize that parts of the left are correct and parts of the right are correct, not one or the other. I am not going to waste my time verifying stuff that you can do yourself. But the fact is you won't because you don't want to know the truth, because it doesn't fit your views. And of course now you will use 1 or 2 things I may have gotten wrong (I threw in some stuff for your enjoyment, and you responded perfectly republican) to smear my character using assumptions I'm a liberal, that I don't fact-check, blah blah. Go for it bitch (I dare you not to comment on my infantile remarks, bet you can't). Bush's numbers are dropping for a reason, all of the crap you spew is for nothing if the middle of the country doesn't agree.

Again I'm not a Democratic, your assumptions is just stupid. The Democrats are NOT dead wrong on this one though, YOU ARE. This war accomplishes nothing, and only hurts us.

Answer me this question: When this war is over and our troops come home and Iraq is running itself freely without any help from us, what have we as American people gained from it?

Don't give me some shit about us being safer either, because that is simply untrue. It has been categorically proven that Saddam posed less of a threat than other countries. I know the answer, there's only 1. Come on buddy, just say it.

I'm looking into the magic 8-ball.......I predict a cop out.

Can you believe some of wha... (Below threshold)

Can you believe some of what these guys are saying. They pretend it was a "hearing" but all it really was is a meeting of the "Congressional Anti-Semite Caucus".

Dan:You're a feckl... (Below threshold)
Peter:

Dan:

You're a feckless crapweasel. And not worth my time. Enjoy your life of ignorance.

Brandon:Ditto.... (Below threshold)
Peter:

Brandon:

Ditto.

Right on cue. If you can't ... (Below threshold)
Brandon:

Right on cue. If you can't win, smear right? So predictable. Enjoy Hannity tonight you red sheep.

Wait a minute...You can't a... (Below threshold)
Brandon:

Wait a minute...You can't answer this question?

When this war is over and our troops come home and Iraq is running itself freely without any help from us, what have we as American people gained from it?

Wait...You can't answer thi... (Below threshold)
Brandon:

Wait...You can't answer this question then?

When this war is over and our troops come home and Iraq is running itself freely without any help from us, what have we as American people gained from it?

Peter,The truth hu... (Below threshold)
Dan:

Peter,

The truth hurts my friend, maybe if you're a good boy and you show a little remorse we'll forgive you for your:

greed
ignorance
evil

...I don't see any other alternatives if you still support Bush. Sorry wingnuts.

Well since Peter pointed to... (Below threshold)
Jay:

Well since Peter pointed to the Duelfer report and the Kay report as evidence to support his assertions, I would recommend he reread the conclusions of both and that he pay close attention to detail.

From the Duelfer report (conclusions section):

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability - which was essentially destroyed in 1991...

(that means there were no longer any WMD, try convincing any sane American that the Bush administration tried to take us to war based on "Saddam wanted to recerate Iraq's WMD capability", they'd laugh you out of the room)

Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy.

(Not attacking the US)

The former (Hussein) regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions.

(nuff said on the Duelfer report).

From David Kay himself:

Dr. Kay said the fundamental errors in prewar intelligence assessments were so grave that he would recommend that the Central Intelligence Agency and other organizations overhaul their intelligence collection and analytical efforts. Dr. Kay said analysts had come to him, "almost in tears, saying they felt so badly that we weren't finding what they had thought we were going to find — I have had analysts apologizing for reaching the conclusions that they did."

I would suggest that before you use something as evidence to support a fact, you investigate the details so as not to look foolish.

I'd like to point out that ... (Below threshold)
BUZZ OFF, CONNIE:

I'd like to point out that there are some things that we all can agree upon: 1)"Fightin" John Kerry really was a war hero 2)Bill Clinton never did inhale 3)Hillary Clinton was only borrowing the furniture from the Whitehouse 4)Ted Kennedy knows American values like he knows the bottom of
a Jim Beam bottle and 5)Sadaam Hussien didn't present a threat to the U.S.

John Kerry at least had the... (Below threshold)
Dan:

John Kerry at least had the balls to take his gazillionaire Brahmin ass to Vietnam, more than we can say for our fearless misleader.

Bill Clinton considered terrorism his highest priority as he was leaving the WH. He briefed the incoming administration on that concern, all details are in Richard Clarke (R - 25 years of service to our country) The Bushies let their guard down and we all know what happened after that. Clinton's been gone too long for wingnuts to continue to berate him. The current mess belongs to George "two-terms mandate" Bush (to steal a phrase from Lawton Smalls).

Hillary Clinton has more brains and decency in a single stand of her hair than the entire Bush admin posesses.

Ted Kennedy could take his fat billionaire ass and sit on the beach on Cape Cod drinking Chivas and getting his pole smoked. Instead, he stays in DC and fights for the little guy. Day in, day out as all Kennedy's have for two generations.

Saddam Hussein didn't present a threat to his next door neighbor. If he had, the Iraqi military would have gotten at least ONE fighter plane off the ground when he was invaded. He would have deployed SOME semblance of a counterattack as the US military marched toward Baghdad. Didn't happen. Case closed.

It's painfully apparent fro... (Below threshold)
mercury:

It's painfully apparent from this thread that there are people who just don't want to deal with the facts. "Peter" has been provided with links and sources and just doesn't want to hear it. The more rational the argument against him, the more he jams his fingers in his ears and goes "LALALLALALALALALA!!! NOT LISTENING!!!"

I'd say somebody get that man a copy of "THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES", but I know nothing will change his mind. So, the hell with him. If he doesn't want to open his eyes like a free person, like a real American, the hell with him.





Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy