Observations on the world today.

Saturday, June 04, 2005

Hey, Media! Wake up! 

My brother has alerted me to a story that is getting a lot of attention overseas, but prescious little here. This memo was discovered and published in England. It tells of the plotting that was going on between the Bushies and Downing Street in the period building up to the Iraq invasion. Here's the best worst part:
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he 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 Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. 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. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

(Emphasis mine)
This is ridiculous. Treasonous. Impeachable. Immoral. Know any other good adjectives? Leave them in the comments. Comments defending this behavior will be met with the appropriate level of derision.

Also, kindly sign the petition.
I was interested, and read your link. I wondered who Matthew Rycroft was, only to discover after reading to the bottom that he was a meager aide in the British government. From your blog, you gave the impression this memo was from our government. Did you deliberately mean to deceive readers?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Oh, yeah, that's exactly what I was doing. Idiot.

I didn't say anything about the origin of the memo except that it was ENGLISH, which pretty much precludes it being from our administration. And it matters not one whit how low Rycroft's level is. The fact that the memo was written PRIOR to the invasion and accurately describes exactly what was going to happen pretty much makes it valid grist for my point.

You are parroting exactly the line the Bushies tried to peddle on this Sunday's Meet the Press, so I do not personally believe that you just happened on the story for the first time in my blog. The memo is real, it was based on genuine minutes from an authentic meeting led by a man who HAD attended secret meeting swith the Bushies. It WAS labled top secret, and it is damning to your hero, GWB.

Now, either you want me to believe that the memo was a lucky guess or it is a fraud, and neither of those scenarios seems convincing in the true light of day, now do they?

Next you will be hyping the "fact" that the 9/11 commission found no evidence of a fraudulant war case. But then again, they didn't have this memo, now did they?

By the way, that last was the bill-of-goods the Bushies tried to peddle on Meeet the Press. It simply doesn't fly.
Are you so obnoxious to all your posters, or just those who differ with you?

Sounds like you have a problem you need to seek help for.

And, you are incorrect. Obviously that matters little to you.
No, mister Anonymous-Sprintlink-stalker, I'm only this obnoxious with you since you seem to have a hard on for me. Now, if at all possible, tell me about which point I am incorrect, moron.
I had to remove a post by Sprintlink. He doesn't follow the rules. My site. My rules, asshole.

Here presented unedited, is the only comment he had which was relevant.

"The most obvious to anyone who isn't biased is that the memo you are refering to was not from anyone who attended the meetings. It is from an aide. Aides are lowly grunts, and not high ranking officials. So what this aide who did not attend the meetings and has no first hand knowledge of what was said there, says, is bogus, and only America haters would give it any credibility at all."
The memo was from an aide, but the memo was a reproduction of MINUTES from a meeting attended by several high level officials.

Nobody in England is denyingthat the minutes are authentic. Only in America are America-firsters making that idiotic argument. So, apparently I was right. You are a moron.
And you haven't denied beating your wife, either. Does that make it true?
The minutes predate the invasion, simpleton. Considering the apparent accuracy of the tactics prophesized in the minutes, either the meeting actually occurred and the things spoken of are true, or somebody fabricated a very very accurate document which prophesized exactly what eventually occurred and spun it in a negative light for future and indeterminate gain and/or political payback. Which scenario best fits Occam's Razor?

You were warned that defending this would result in derision. So don't whine about being called a simpleton now.
Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?