• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush Was Set on Path to War, Memo by British Adviser Says

PeteEU said:
Let me guess .. the European country was France.....this France bashing without a shred of proof is getting old. Or maybe it was Germany, a country we already knew that had sold equipment that could be used in the manufacture of chemical weapons.. but hey dont let a decade mean anything.

Where was Saddams main income? Oil for Food or the illegal smuggling accross the Jordanian and Turkish border with the full knowledge and acceptance of the US and its allies?

Blaming the UN for everything is getting old, especially when the USA could have blown the whistle on oil for food and all the illegal smuggling years before it came out... why did it not? Why did the brits not? And considering that they knew and were warned time and time again of odd contracts, they did NOTHING. The oil for food witchhunt in the US is nothing but a huge smoke screen to avoid the truth that the US was just as much to blame as anyone else in the whole thing.

I do not know what country it was , but I don't believe it was France. So much for the rest of your accusational whine. It's your region of the world. Embrace your hypocrisy. America embraces hers. :roll:
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
Its amazing what levels the Bush apologists on this board will go to to defend this man and his policies. Let me give you a clue, no matter what you argue, the Country isn't buying it. It is abundantly clear and has been for quite a while that Rumsfield/Cheney/Rove wanted to invade Iraq before Bush was ever selected. The WMD was the first lie to justify the invasion, but they made a little mistake, they didn't plan on what to say when they didn't produce them, so then the focus changed to the reason we invaded was to get rid of Saddam Hussein.

I have one plea to the Bush Apologists....OK, we get it, you Love this man because he is promoting the agenda of the radical right....that's ok......he has done and is doing what you want him to do.....and even though I disagree with that agenda, so be it. But there comes a time when you need to stop apologizing for every idiotic thing this man does just because of this. CLUE: You don't have to apologize and support everything this man does....he will still pursue your right-wing agenda.


Who's apologizing? Maybe you should learn what the term means before embarking on another embarrassing rant. Ignorance always proves the fool. Of course, partisan slavery usually vomits forth such trite words. With terms like "Bush apologist" and "right wing agenda", it is fairly easy to see who has political masters and who does not.:cool:
 
disneydude said:
The WMD was the first lie to justify the invasion.
Wow, there certainly were a lot of people telling that lie, weren't there?

Let's run down a few:

President Clinton
Madeline Albright
Sandy Berger
Tom Daschele
Nancy Pelosi
John Kerry
Bob Graham
Carl Levin
Al Gore
Ted Kennedy
Robert Byrd
Jay Rockefeller
Henry Waxman
Hillary Clinton
Wesley Clark
John Edwards

All liars. Right, disney?
 
Last edited:
Cassapolis said:
By DON VAN NATTA Jr.
Published: March 27, 2006

LONDON — In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.

But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.

"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."

The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present the American evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons.

Although the United States and Britain aggressively sought a second United Nations resolution against Iraq — which they failed to obtain — the president said repeatedly that he did not believe he needed it for an invasion.

Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Mr. Blair's most senior aides, had not been made public. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo.

Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While the president's sentiments about invading Iraq were known at the time, the previously unreported material offers an unfiltered view of two leaders on the brink of war, yet supremely confident.

The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/i...tml?_r=1&incamp=article_popular_5&oref=slogin

I had such a sense of Deja Vu watching this story news yesterday. At first I thought that the corporate media was finally getting around to covering the May 2005's Downing Street Memo almost a year after it's release.

In actuality it was more confirmation of what we've known for years; Bush was going to war in Iraq no matter what and the intelligence was fixed to support his position.
 
hipsterdufus said:
I had such a sense of Deja Vu watching this story news yesterday. At first I thought that the corporate media was finally getting around to covering the May 2005's Downing Street Memo almost a year after it's release.

In actuality it was more confirmation of what we've known for years; Bush was going to war in Iraq no matter what and the intelligence was fixed to support his position.


Hence, what I have been trying to state this whole time. "Nothing new here. It is a pointless memo." One only has to look at the sentiments of the former President to recognize that Saddam's days were numbered.
 
Back
Top Bottom