Tony Blair told President George Bush that he was "solidly" behind US plans to invade Iraq before he sought advice about the invasion's legality and despite the absence of a second UN resolution, according to a new account of the build-up to the war published today.Oh, my. Seems that there's a memo that the Bush administration (and its defenders) won't like. Some highlights of the memo:
A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme.[emphasis added]
Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]".Can someone tell me why we should believe anything this president says anymore?
IMPEACH
13 comments:
Dayvoe,
And where did this "memo" come from? What evidence do you have that this so called "memo" is genuine, and not just another attempt from the far left to undermine our President a/la Dan Rather and CBS News?
You two need serious help. I am convinced that if the National Enquirer reported that the President were from the planet Pluto, you'd report it as factual.
Once again, we have the "nonpartisan" political reporting game; "non-partisan" only when a liberal reports it, right?
I implore you to come forward and reveal where this so called "memo" came from; and don't sit there and blab out that it came directly from the White House because I don't buy that for a second. Amazing that "memos" like this never came from the Clinton White House, "memos" like this always seem to be released from the current Administration, though. Coincidence? *cough*cough*
For the severely mentally challenged among you:
There's a thing called a "link."
It often appears in text on websites as an underlined word.
When you click on the link, you can often find more information -- like answers to the some of the questions asked by silly boys.
Maria...
What you just said, is one of the most insane, idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point were you even close to a rational thought. Everyone who read what you wrote, is now dumber for having read it.
So what you are really saying, is that you believe something to be true, just because it's on the internet as a "link" as you so put. Are you that God forsaken naive?
For the snark-impaired (like Braden -- and what grade are you in anyway?):
If you had bothered to go to the link and read the original Guardian article, perhaps you could have tried to raise some actual points -- like grownups do. You would have seen more background on the memo's origins there and then you could have -- oh, I don't know -- done some research on the subject and come back with perhaps even genuine concerns about authenticity.
But your mind is so tiny and closed that all you could do is bleat out "Dan Rather!" "Dan Rather!" like the mindless Kool-Aid drinker you are -- as if that somehow "won" any argument.
The same way that in your bizarre little world, if MoveOn were to say the sky is blue, you would feel compelled to argue that it was green (like the lemming you are).
It's almost amusing to watch the way your mind works -- or should I say doesn't work.
And, please note the "almost."
Maria, not surprisingly, all you can do is bash and call names and use vulgarity. You'll sit there and offer absolutely no logical debate at all. All you do is sit there, and spew out your vulgarities. Why? Because you know down deep that you have nothing intelligent to say in response. You have the gall to sit there and make a reference as to "what grade am I in," well you best take a long, hard look in the mirror, lady.
You bash, undermine, use vulgarities, and continually demonstrate your lack of intelligence by the hissing you do. Go on, Maria. Keep it up. Keep projecting the so-called diverse, loving, peaceful philosophy that you and your political party supposedly believe in. Then, you'll claim the "victim" time and time again when you continue to lose elections. No wonder many people in your very own party are telling you guys to back off and shut up. Why? Because they know the image that you and those like you project are killing their own political party. And it's the same people like you who don't even realize their own narcissistic attitude is the primary cause of their political party's own shortcomings and continuous failures. "How so?" you ask. Look at the two last Presidential elections. Enough said.
So go on, keep shooting off your vulgar, unintelligent comments. You're not hurting me any. If anything, you're providing a solid entertainment by demonstrating to me the kind of person you are. And while you're at it, you're only projecting your true colors to those who read your foolhardy writings, too.
Braden;
You called it a "so called 'memo'" a couple of times.
You ARE kidding, right?
Are you really questioning the existence of the memo?
Did you click on the link? It goes back to a real live news source, The Guardian. Are you saying that the Guardian made up the story?
USAToday has an article on the memo.
Take a look here. And when you click the link, you'll find that along with The Guardian, Channel 4 in Britain, the AP and the BBC have all reported on the memo.
Do you doubt all of them, too?
In order for your doubts to have any weight, all those journalists have to be either lying to the world, or wrong.
And if they were wrong (or lying) don't you think that the rest of the world would be pouncing on the story about now?
So any news outlet that could, but isn't, reporting on the falsity of the "so called memo" must also be wrong or lying, right?
So basically all of the world's news organizations must be wrong in order for you to be right.
Which do you think it is?
Test comment - please ignore.
Dayvoe --
Well, I am using the same mentality that you and Maria are using. So I guess a national news outlet such as CBS News was correct for reporting a story which they knew wasn't true was correct anyway, because it was being reported pretty much directly before the Presidential Election of 2004. Yes, Dan Rather, he was correct because it's a national news media outlet. Right? Don't even try that with me, sir.
Funny, Maria called me a "kool-aid drinker." Uhmmm, I hate to break it to her, but the term "kool-aid" drinker refers to a liberal. I can only speculate that Maria's anger and temper was the cause of her embarrassing error.
Moving forward, the only "rest of the world" you speak of after the Dan Rather incident were the bloggers. They were the reason why Dan Rather didn't get away with what they did. Only when the bloggers moved on that falsified story did it come out. So again, do not even try your foolhardy attempts at justifying your so called news sources to me. It won't work. And you have the nerve to call "me" a liar? Sheesh. Pot..Kettle..Black, Sir.
no, a kool aid drinker is a right wing republican neo con thumper.
the right wing has names for us as well, but kool aid drinker isn't one of them.
Braden;
Now I'm convinced you're putting me on, my friend.
If I was convinced you were sincere, I'd have to think that you're still doubting the existence of the memo (even though you never mention it in your most recent comments).
And unfortunately, that's only supported by the fact that you're now using the phrase "so called news sources" to describe The Guardian, the BBC, the AP and so on.
First you called the memo a "so called memo" and now the media outlets reporting on it are "so called media outlets." Where does this end?
One last thing, I have to know whether you are saying that I made up the story. And if not me, then who? The Guardian? The BBC? The AP?
And what is your evidence that anyone made it up. The burden of proof is on your shoulders, my friend.
Until you can come up with that evidence, I suggest sit down, take a deep breath and re-evaluate your epistimological skepticism. It's getting in the way of your cognitive thinking abilities.
Unless the whole thing is a gag, then I say, Bravo! you've punk'd us. For a while we actually thought you were a sincere in your beliefs, but now it's obvious you were just yanking our collective chains. If you'd been a little less over the top, you'd have been able to pull it off for a whole lot longer.
"but now it's obvious you were just yanking our collective chains."
- We will add your biological and psychological distinctiveness to our collective...resistance, is futile.
Post a Comment