Downing Street Memo

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I guess I'm writing mostly from an American perspective. Sure, terrible abuses happened back in the day, but when obvious and substantial enough they used to generate quite a storm. No longer, it seems. Everything has been submerged under partisanship, and even large government abuses don't change many minds.

[Beet]

Although what you've said is exactly what's happend to local government over here. Heard about the power struggle in Liverpool?

Not really. Sorry, I only follow British politics around election times.

[Shira]

Enough with this intelligence failure spin. They badly wanted to control Iraq long before 9/11. They needed a smart way to sell it to the naive American people.

Shira, I agree with you on the above, though not on much else about Bush or Iraq.

During the runup to the war, I didn’t believe that Hussein had workable systems to deploy WMDs, except, perhaps, by individuals carrying “dirty bombs” or releasing chemical weapons. I saw the WMD pitch as hyped up, the Powell performance at the UN as a loyal soldier carrying out an order he intensely disliked and didn’t believe in. I thought at the time that the Iraq invasion had been an early goal of the Cheney-Wolfowitz-Perle-Rumsfeld camp that after 9/11 was seized upon and elevated to a first response status, particularly after our overcautious “pursuit” of Bin Laden stalled for fear of crossing the Pakistani border.

Nevertheless, I didn’t oppose the invasion, and support the war now, for the same reasons that I imagine the neoconservatives in Bush’s cabinet were pushing it all along:

•   Ease the world oil crisis by pumping up Iraqi production to 4-5 billion gallons/day. Win the confidence of the Iraqi nation by building up an impoverished economy and infrastructure supported by increased oil production. Establish a representative government friendly to the U.S.
•   Get rid of a brutal bully who had the will, if not the means, to attack Israel and the West, and who would gladly harbor and deal with terrorists if it worked to further his megalomaniacal plans.
•   Establish a forward camp of American military strength in the heart of the Middle East, creating leverage that will influence the internal politics of neighboring countries.

In many ways, Iraq was the perfect place to start the neocons more aggressive approach to foreign policy – a country with major oil deposits, with a more secular population that has more of a gut distrust of fundamentalist fanaticism than most of it’s neighbors, and a people so abused and terrorized by their own government for 25 years that they would likely demonstrate an intense thirst for personal and political freedoms.

Did it all work out as planned? Of course not.

Will it work out as planned over a number of years? Absolutely. Only those whose politics are dominated by a livid gut hatred of Bush can deny that the people of Iraq are on a course towards democracy that stands an excellent chance of surviving ethnic rivalries and fringe religious fanaticism.

The political subterfuge tied to the WMD hype was Bush’s biggest campaign weakness among moderates critical to his re-election. If the Downing Street memo had come out during the campaign, it might have been the story that cost Bush and the neocons their jobs. At this point, the impression that it conveys about pre-war planning will have a tough time making headway against the increasing number of headlines conveying success in Iraq.

One crucial word is missing in your long response - OIL.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

New information related to to this.

A UK diplomat has gone on the record as saying claims about Iraqi WMD were "totally implausible", and that everyone knew that before we invaded.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1510259,00.html

[riceowl]

One crucial word is missing in your long response - OIL.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Reason #508 Shira should never ever leave:

"Nevertheless, I didn’t oppose the invasion, and support the war now, for the same reasons that I imagine the neoconservatives in Bush’s cabinet were pushing it all along:

•   Ease the world oil crisis by pumping up Iraqi production to 4-5 billion gallons/day. Win the confidence of the Iraqi nation by building up an impoverished economy and infrastructure supported by increased oil production. Establish a representative government friendly to the U.S."

Your stupidity is a shining beacon to liberals everywhere.
Bless you!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No one would give a sh**t about the middle east if it wasn't for oil. The Congo recently had a war where 3 million people died. Funny how that didn't get reported on.

[J. J.]

Well, woulndn't there be a little problem since Kerry sent a letter to Clinton about Iraq's WMD's?  Should we impeach most of Congress?  If there is no Congress, how could a president be impeached? :-)

 

That just proves that Kerry is no peacnik. That letter was from 1998 or so, and was based upon bad information that was found to be bad before we invaded Iraq. It's irrevelant to the Downing Street memo, which indicated that Bush started planning to invade Iraq shortly after 9/11, and didn't care about evidence or diplomaacy, he was going to invade no matter what.

Enough of blaming the Democrats for Bush's mistake. That's g pathetic.

I'm not blaming anyone in office for an intelligence failure.  You've just demonstated that there was bad information that was circulating during the Clinton period.

Enough with this intelligence failure spin. They badly wanted to control Iraq long before 9/11. They needed a smart way to sell it to the naive American people.

You have to ask why they felt a need for war; it is clear, if the memo is accurate, that all parties believed Iraq had stockpiles of WMD's.

[J. J.]

New information related to to this.

A UK diplomat has gone on the record as saying claims about Iraqi WMD were "totally implausible", and that everyone knew that before we invaded.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1510259,00.html

Here is one of the "implausible" things the diplomat, Richard Norton-Taylor said:  "There was a very good alternative to war that was never properly pursued, which was to close down Saddam's sources of illegal revenue."  (same source)


Now, there were calls for more than a decade to do this, but the UN could not enforce them.  If Norton-Taylor thinks that this is an "alternative," we really should question his judgment.  We should probably have him drug tested too.

[riceowl]

Bumped to give Shira more credibility hits.