Downing Steet Memo

[psi_radar]

Here's the Downing Street Memo, which proves the widely held suspicions that W purposefully lied to us about the reasons we went into Iraq.

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html

In most presidencies, this would be enough to impeach. So far, I haven't heard much more than a mouse fart resulting from this document. Are we, America, too jaded or scared to care that we went to war on lies?

 

[sgtmac_46]

Here's the Downing Street Memo, which proves the widely held suspicions that W purposefully lied to us about the reasons we went into Iraq.

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html

In most presidencies, this would be enough to impeach. So far, I haven't heard much more than a mouse fart resulting from this document. Are we, America, too jaded or scared to care that we went to war on lies?

Both Dan Rather and Newsweek have just announced that they have verified the memo's authenticity as FAKE, but ACCURATE.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Oh. So you have solid reasons to believe that this memo's a fake.

What are they, please?

 

[sgtmac_46]

Oh. So you have solid reasons to believe that this memo's a fake.

What are they, please?

You have solid proof it's real? Oh, yeah, I know a) you agree with it politically b) it was written in a media source. And of course, anything that you agree with is true, until proven otherwise...and even then, it's still true? Evidence please.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Uh---published in "The Times of London," not denied or impeached by the British government? Pretty much fits the other evidence we have about the Bush government's playing fast and loose with reality in this particular matter?

And what would be your evidence that it's wrong? I'm perfectly happy to concede--just provide a smoodge of evidence, please.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Uh---published in "The Times of London," not denied or impeached by the British government? Pretty much fits the other evidence we have about the Bush government's playing fast and loose with reality in this particular matter?

And what would be your evidence that it's wrong? I'm perfectly happy to concede--just provide a smoodge of evidence, please.

The Times of London, as unimpeachable a source as Newsweek or Dan Rather. I at least applaud your veiled honesty "Pretty much fits what I believe about the world around me, so it must be true."

 

[rmcrobertson]

Do you have any acrual evidence at all that the story/memo are fake, or do you simply insist upon the, "I don't want to believe it, so it's not true," approach?

 

[sgtmac_46]

Do you have any acrual evidence at all that the story/memo are fake, or do you simply insist upon the, "I don't want to believe it, so it's not true," approach?

In all honesty, I really don't have an opinion one way or the other, I was mainly just giving you someone to argue with. As far as i'm concerned, the issue is irrelavent, and is only of concern to those who DESIRE evidence of what they already believe. I have a bad habit of playing devil's advocate on occassion, please forgive me. If you'd like, however, I can form a decent argument for you to spar against if it'll make you happy.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I personally do not engage in sophistry, so I think it best to leave you with this one.

 

[Makalakumu]

The Downing Street Memo is the missing link between all of the official intelligence reports reporting on intelligence failures. It also explains much about the disgruntlment in the CIA. Not to mention, the memo fills in the gap that the 911 Commission left unfilled. It is another piece of the puzzle of politics, but I don't think that our country is willing to rehash the debate right now.

Besides, there is no way that W is going to be impeached with the fellows who are in power right now.

The bottom line is that the neocons have wanted this war since 1997. WMD was the excuse.

 

[psi_radar]

You have solid proof it's real? Oh, yeah, I know a) you agree with it politically b) it was written in a media source. And of course, anything that you agree with is true, until proven otherwise...and even then, it's still true? Evidence please.

It was authenticated by unnamed British sources that were there. No one has challenged the document, which Blair and others absolutely have motivation to if it were a forgery. So what do you think about its ramifications? You seem to be gleefully poking fun at an issue that to me, at least, is pretty damn serious. On a certain level, I think we all know or suspect we went to war on false pretenses. Here's proof. How does that make you feel? Happy that we're at war?

 

[sgtmac_46]

It was authenticated by unnamed British sources that were there. No one has challenged the document, which Blair and others absolutely have motivation to if it were a forgery. So what do you think about its ramifications? You seem to be gleefully poking fun at an issue that to me, at least, is pretty damn serious. On a certain level, I think we all know or suspect we went to war on false pretenses. Here's proof. How does that make you feel? Happy that we're at war?

Authenticated by "unnamed sources"? Is that like fake, but accurate? What source, the janitor? I poke fun at the attempt to make a HUGE case, about absolutely nothing. What anyone believes about these documents, really is directly proportional to what they believed BEFORE these documents. It's that simple, and in that sense, it changes nothing. I know exactly why we went to war, and this changes none of that. Are you happy? lol Incidently, these are nothing of a smoking gun, but, even IF legitimate, represent NOTHING but a HIGH British officials OPINION on Washington's motivations. lol, keep trying though.

 

[Makalakumu]

Authenticated by "unnamed sources"? Is that like fake, but accurate? What source, the janitor? I poke fun at the attempt to make a HUGE case, about absolutely nothing. What anyone believes about these documents, really is directly proportional to what they believed BEFORE these documents. It's that simple, and in that sense, it changes nothing. I know exactly why we went to war, and this changes none of that. Are you happy? lol Incidently, these are nothing of a smoking gun, but, even IF legitimate, represent NOTHING but a HIGH British officials OPINION on Washington's motivations. lol, keep trying though.

What would be those reasons?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Oh. So if my government distorts intelligence, invents, "facts," and flat-out lies in order to get a war started that they'd already decided to start, that doesn't matter in the least.

Uh...hate to get all American on anybody, but that isn't how a democracy works.

Oh wait...I know the reply. Our governments have done this before, so it's OK now. Or wait...Hussein needed to go, so it's OK that our government lied. No, no, that's not it...we should support the troops. Uh, hang on...I got it...it's realpolitik, and if libs knew anything about the world, they'd know that....no, no, still haven't got it...MY COUNTRY, RIGHT OR WRONG!!!

The memo appears to be accurate. Nobody's claimed otherwise; nobody's presented the slightest case for its inaccuracy. It says that Bush decided to go to war early on, and simply made up stuff to justify it. He lied; they lied.

Call me old-fashioned, but I think that's wrong. The problem with the Dan Quayles and the George Bushes of the world--beyond their clear contempt for most Americans--is their new-fangled, corporatist belief that the elite can do whatever the hell they please, without having to suffer any of the consequences.

It's just more post-modern, anti-American, screw democracy nonsense. I expect no better from these clowns.

 

[Phoenix44]

I don't even understand why this is a partisan issue, or why anyone would say it's "irrelevant."

More than 1600 American troops are dead, more than 12,000 maimed. We've spent a couple hundred billion dollars, causing record deficits. We've destroyed a country, killing tens of thousands of civilians. We already know that the pretenses on which we went to war are false. There's plenty of reason to suspect the war rationale was contrived, and now a credible memo indicates that it might not have been simply a mistake, but a deliberate fabrication by the person at the highest level of our national trust: the President of the United States.

Don't you even think it deserves investigation??? Because if you have so little concern and curiosity, then I fail to understand why you even join in the discussion at all. It's irrelevant, isn't it? How little can you possibly care?

 

[sgtmac_46]

I don't even understand why this is a partisan issue, or why anyone would say it's "irrelevant."

More than 1600 American troops are dead, more than 12,000 maimed. We've spent a couple hundred billion dollars, causing record deficits. We've destroyed a country, killing tens of thousands of civilians. We already know that the pretenses on which we went to war are false. There's plenty of reason to suspect the war rationale was contrived, and now a credible memo indicates that it might not have been simply a mistake, but a deliberate fabrication by the person at the highest level of our national trust: the President of the United States.

Don't you even think it deserves investigation??? Because if you have so little concern and curiosity, then I fail to understand why you even join in the discussion at all. It's irrelevant, isn't it? How little can you possibly care?

It's irrelavent because this memo isn't evidence of any sort. It's a secondary document featuring the opinions of a member of the British government about the motives of the US administration, hardly proof of anything other than that particular officials opinions. It means nothing. It's not even a primary source document. If you don't know what that is, you might want to investigate it before posting any further. This whole thing is nothing but a hack partisan stunt.

 

[Phoenix44]

It's not even a primary source document. If you don't know what that is, you might want to investigate it before posting any further.

Thanks for the gratuitous and undeserved comment implying my ignorance, however have no fear, I probably have far more experience with "primary sources" than most of the people on this board.

The Downing Street memo was not the only source suggesting cooked intelligence info. Similar suggestions come up in books by Woodward and Unger, and if anyone needs more suggestions of motive, I'd suggest reviewing the Project for A New American Century.

As I said, it warrants an investigation. Since you encouraged me to "investigate" the definition of "primary source," you obviously appreciate the value of investigation.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Thanks for the gratuitous and undeserved comment implying my ignorance, however have no fear, I probably have far more experience with "primary sources" than most of the people on this board.

The Downing Street memo was not the only source suggesting cooked intelligence info. Similar suggestions come up in books by Woodward and Unger, and if anyone needs more suggestions of motive, I'd suggest reviewing the Project for A New American Century.

As I said, it warrants an investigation. Since you encouraged me to "investigate" the definition of "primary source," you obviously appreciate the value of investigation.

lol. And here I thought were were discussing the Downing Street memo. We're back to the "fake but accurate" argument. I still don't hear you defending it's accuracy as a stand alone, but merely saying "It sounds like it's probably true, even if it isn't." Try again.

 

[psi_radar]

It's irrelavent because this memo isn't evidence of any sort. It's a secondary document featuring the opinions of a member of the British government about the motives of the US administration, hardly proof of anything other than that particular officials opinions. It means nothing. It's not even a primary source document. If you don't know what that is, you might want to investigate it before posting any further. This whole thing is nothing but a hack partisan stunt.

Seems to me it's harder evidence than that for which we went to war; yet you "know" why we went to war, and reject this evidence, which baffles me. Since this war started, we've been provided with no less (and probably more than) three reasons for initiating this debacle, with intelligence much shakier than this. This was a high-level meeting discussing the basis for participation in a war for their country. Surely they were more than speculating on the US position for war and why--that position had been made absolutely clear, and was the purpose for the meeting itself.

As Phoenix44 said, don't you think something important as this warrants investigation? Or are you too partisan yourself to accept that there might be something to this, even though the facts have been lining up in this direction for years?

 

[rmcrobertson]

"Primary source document," eh? Good to see you've been reading my posts, where I keep raising the issue.

You also might want to note that in the sciences, a theory is considered more-reliable to the extent that there are, "convergent," lines of evidence supporting it. For example, the theory of evolution is considered scientifically reliable because so many different lines of evidence, from so many different fields, converge towards that conclusion.

The general hypothesis is that the Bush government lied when saying that they were only considering war as an option, because they'd already made their mind up, and grossly distorted evidence in support of a decision that had nothing to do with their public rationales.

This memo, together with a rather large set of other evidences, converges towards that hypothesis.

I note, by the way, that they're no longer even pretending to offer explanations.