IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New I think it won't be dismissed so easily
its doing a slow burn and could easily go white hot with adequate support.




"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect"   --Mark Twain

"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them."   --Albert Einstein

"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses."   --George W. Bush
Expand Edited by tuberculosis Aug. 21, 2007, 12:46:36 PM EDT
New Yeah, it's not going to go away.
Too many people too pissed off. I think the oil execs can see the writing on the wall and will be issuing orders shortly. My prediction: Bush resigns in disgrace and receives a presidential pardon from Cheney, who resigns in disgrace and receives.....
-----------------------------------------
"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican."
-- H. L. Mencken

Support our troops, Impeach Bush.
D. D. Richards
New Yet we're still stuck w/ Bush, Cheney, et al.
If there is any g*d, the Bushits will be declared war criminals. Assuming the Presidential pardons, that means the U.S. will be the only safe house they have left.

Or, perhaps they could be exiled to Saudi Arabia.

thanks
mx.
"I'm man enough to tell you that I can't put my finger on
exactly what my philosophy is now, but I'm flexible."
-- Malcolm X
Expand Edited by xtensive June 20, 2005, 07:43:44 PM EDT
New Dreamer.
Not from what it looks like here. Bush is a hero, questioning him is treasonous.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New I don't think it has very strong legs myself.
Let's take the [link|http://www.democracyforamerica.com/memo.php|memo] at face value. It's dated 23 July 2002. The damning quote that we hear so much about says, in full:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action. CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August. The two broad US options were: [...]


First, I've heard some argue that "[link|http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fixed|fixed]" means something slightly different in the UK than it does in the US. That is, if "fixed" = "concentrate", then it doesn't seem so shocking. If "fixed" = "To influence the outcome or actions of by improper or unlawful means", then it means something completely different. The leading "But" probably makes the "concentrate" interpretation unlikely. Perhaps Peter, Matthew and Ashton can comment on that.

Let's also consider the [link|http://www.afsc.org/iraq/guide/war-timeline.htm|timeline].

Jan. 29, 2002- In Pres. George W. Bush's State of the Union speech, he identifies Iraq , along with Iran and North Korea , as an \ufffdaxis of evil.\ufffd He vows that the United States \ufffdwill not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.\ufffd

April 20, 2002- \ufffdStop the War at Home and Abroad,\ufffd a coordinated protest of all major coalitions against the broad and destructive war in Afghanistan , draws 75,000 to 120,000 in Washington , D.C.

May 14, 2002- The UN Security Council revamps the 11-year-old sanctions against Iraq , introducing a new set of procedures for processing contracts for humanitarian supplies and equipment. At this time, the United States is preventing $5 billion of material from entering Iraq through \ufffdholds\ufffd by the sanctions committee.

Sept. 12, 2002- President Bush addresses the opening of the UN General Assembly, challenging the body to confront the \ufffdgrave and gathering danger\ufffd of Iraq \ufffd \ufffd or become irrelevant.

Sept. 17, 2002- President Bush releases his administration's National Security Strategy, outlining a more militarized policy relying on first strikes. It says the United States will exploit its military and economic power to encourage \ufffdfree and open societies.\ufffd It emphasizes that the United States will never allow its military supremacy to be challenged, as it was during the Cold War.

Oct. 10, 2002- Congress adopts a joint resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq and gives the president authority to take preemptive, unilateral military action against Iraq , when and how he deems necessary. The bill is opposed by 133 representatives and 23 senators.

Nov. 8, 2002- The UN Security Council unanimously approves Resolution 1441, imposing tough new arms inspections on Iraq and precise, unambiguous definitions of what constitutes a \ufffdmaterial breach.\ufffd Should Iraq violate the resolution, it faces \ufffdserious consequences,\ufffd which the Security Council would determine.

[...]

Feb. 24, 2003- The United States , Great Britain , and Spain submit a proposed resolution to the UN Security Council stating, \ufffd Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in Resolution 1441.\ufffd The resolution concludes it is time to authorize use of military force. France , Germany , and Russia submit an informal counter-resolution, stating that inspections should be intensified and extended to ensure there is \ufffda real chance for the peaceful settlement of this crisis\ufffd and that \ufffdthe military option should only be a last resort.\ufffd


The invasion began March 19, 2003.

Bush went to the UN after this memo. Congress had its hearings and vote after this memo. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee had a HEARINGS TO EXAMINE THREATS, RESPONSES, AND REGIONAL CONSIDERATIONS SURROUNDING IRAQ on July 31 and August 1, 2002 [link|http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/text/iraqhear.txt|Text], [link|http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/pdf/iraqhear.pdf|279 page .pdf]. E.g. Russ Feingold said:

Regardless of which policy path we choose, our goal is presumably to make America more secure in the long-term. That means that it will be crucially important to think through the aftermath of any proposed military strike. That means thinking about whether or not there will be a context of order in which controls can be imposed and maintained on weapons of mass destruction and the means to fashion them, and that means thinking about the conditions and the will of the long-suffering Iraqi people. We have to be honest with ourselves and with the American people\ufffdthese are big issues, and addressing them may require very serious commitments.

I don\ufffdt think we need access to classified information to begin today to weigh the risks and opportunities that confront us. But I also look forward, in both secure and
open settings, to hearing the administration make its case for a given policy response. Certainly the perspective of the Administration is one that we must hear before coming to any ultimate conclusions. Today, however, I think we have an opportunity to explore the general nature of the threats, dangers and policy options that exist. As a starting point, these considerations are crucial.

Following these hearings, and subsequent consultations with the Administration, Congress may ultimately conclude that America\ufffds interests require a direct military response to threats emanating from Iraq. If we do come to that grave conclusion, I would urge my colleagues to honor the Constitution by providing congressional approval for military action. And I would counsel the President that by following in his father\ufffds footsteps and seeking congressional authorization, the President would ensure that any military response against Iraq would be taken from a constitutionally unified, and inherently stronger, position.

I look forward to these initial discussions.


E.g. Dr. Phebe Marr:

IRAQ AFTER SADDAM

The purpose of my testimony is to provide a snapshot of what we can expect in Iraq after Saddam, should the US be successful in achieving his fall. Obviously, the means and manner of removing the regime will affect the aftermath: a relatively quick transition with a minimum of bloodshed and destruction will provide one set of circumstances; a more prolonged and destructive military operation will produce
a less favorable outcome. It also matters whether the change is accomplished from within, by Iraqis, or requires a direct US military effort. Rather than dealing with the means, however, which is not my area of expertise, I would like to focus on a general political and social picture of Iraq; what we should be prepared to find in Iraq the day after, and, in particular, two key issues that will be critical for US policy and planning in post-Saddam Iraq. The first is the potential for fragmentation or fracturing, once Saddam\ufffds regime is decapitated, and, along with it, the potential
for outside interference from Iraq\ufffds neighbors. The second is the issue of providing alternative political leadership for Iraq, the nature of that leadership, and the implications of the choice for Iraq\ufffds future and US policy aims.

Replacement of Iraq\ufffds leadership is a serious and ambitious project. It is a difficult foreign policy decision for the US, in part, because its potential benefits, both to Iraqis at home and to the security of the region, are high. But so, too, are the possible costs as well as unintended consequences which cannot be calculated. If the US embarks on this project, it needs to be prepared to fulfill its responsibilities, and see it through to an acceptable outcome, including a potential long-term military and political commitment to assure a stable and more democratic government. If it is not prepared to do so, the intended benefits could vanish.


There was a great deal of debate inside and outside the Beltway on what it would mean to invade Iraq. People were thinking about the aftermath. While some things clearly haven't gone well, there hasn't (yet) been a war between Turkey and the Iraqi Kurds.

(The University of Michigan has links to a vast horde of original documents on "The Iraq War Debate 2002/2005" [link|http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/iraqwar.html|here].)

There really isn't anything new in the DSM, IMO. People were arguing that there was a "rush to war" in 2001-2003. People, including Scott Ritter, and many in the UN and Congress, were arguing that the intelligence didn't support claims of Saddam being a threat. People made the decisions to support Bush in spite of these doubts.

I agree that the DSM isn't going to go away, but I don't think it's going to change any minds in the Congress or the Senate. It will certainly come up before the Congressional elections in 2006 and before the Presidential election in 2008. It'll be part of the debate, but I don't think it's going to change many minds.

Many may recall that I felt a strong case could be made for removing Saddam independent of the WMD claims, as I said [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=47900|here] and [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=80009|here] and [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=83838|here] and elsewhere around that time frame. While the case for war hasn't been as strong as I felt at the time, I don't think that the DSM is terribly damaging to Bush.

There's no way Bush will resign though, not unless the Senate kicks him really hard. I don't see that happening.

We'll see how it turns out.

Cheers,
Scott.
New The British meaning of 'fixed'
The British meaning of 'fixed' rarely means 'concentrated' and 'fixed around' never means 'concentrated around'. The phrase means what you think it means: evidence was being subverted to make the conclusion they wanted, not relied upon to make an informed decision. The 'But' does, indeed, mean that intelligence did not naturally support the Saddam-removal reasons.

In the UK, it's obvious intelligence agencies were told to write for the conclusions the cabinet wanted.
Matthew Greet


Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin?
- Mark Renton, Trainspotting.
New I think you are missing something
There really isn't anything new in the DSM, IMO. People were arguing that there was a "rush to war" in 2001-2003. People, including Scott Ritter, and many in the UN and Congress, were arguing that the intelligence didn't support claims of Saddam being a threat. People made the decisions to support Bush in spite of these doubts.


This depends entirely on who you mean by "people". The people I know who supported Bush and voted for him absolutely believed that Saddam was tied to 9/11 and not only was pursuing a WMD program but that our troops had *already* found WMD. Those who believed the lies did not have, as you say above, these doubts. They supported Bush because they did *not* have doubts.

The vast majority of Bush supporters voted him in out of fear of a mushroom cloud delivered by Saddam Hussein. Their support for the war was based on their belief in a lie. They were lied to by both the administration and the news media. Some of the news media is downplaying the DMO in a shameful act of CYA. If they knew then that these were lies then they have abrogated any shred of trust by the public in their publishing of known (by them) lies.
-----------------------------------------
"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican."
-- H. L. Mencken

Support our troops, Impeach Bush.
D. D. Richards
New Succinct, al punte. But --
The Unknown X ever is:

Just how much 'inner considering' does any zealot still experience?
..and when Evull WDYHASMs are dissing Your carnate-Saviour; He who Protects YourSons&Daughters from
marauding mobs of Satanically-DOOMED Saddam-loving 'gays', armed with drugs (normally just used after Ecstacy parties..) etc.

How Much will such a one care about umm, a few slip-ups? / ..He Meant Well / ..He meant to Save US. cha and cha.

Our capacity to lie-to-self has always been robust nay infinite, once any True Belief has mixed whipped cream into the jelloware, with a Cherry on top.

The 'Facts' may have little to do with any widespread urges towards local regime change. Sadly.. as-it-Gets :(

It's not easy being greensane, when all about are folks trying to scalp tickets for Rapturin-Outta Here, SAP.
     Downing Street memo picking up yet more steam - (Silverlock) - (14)
         I think it won't be dismissed so easily - (tuberculosis) - (7)
             Yeah, it's not going to go away. - (Silverlock) - (6)
                 Yet we're still stuck w/ Bush, Cheney, et al. - (xtensive)
                 Dreamer. - (imric)
                 I don't think it has very strong legs myself. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                     The British meaning of 'fixed' - (warmachine)
                     I think you are missing something - (Silverlock) - (1)
                         Succinct, al punte. But -- - (Ashton)
         dan rather effect rearing its head - (boxley) - (5)
             Blair has already confirmed the accuracy of these memos - (Silverlock) - (4)
                 Need more proof than these - (bepatient)
                 they are starting to question the legitimacy -NT - (boxley) - (2)
                     Good -NT - (Silverlock)
                     Oh Good -> Blair as lying co-conspirator, for authenticating -NT - (Ashton)

It's a wet cheese, left out in the cold.
111 ms