Comments on: British Memo Says Bush Was Intent On Invading Iraq

By: dan

dan — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:13:31 +0000

America writes plans for conflict with numerous other countries, no matter how unlikely such an event is. These plans are regularly refreshed. They probably have even one ready for a conflict with Canada. It’s called being prepared for any eventuality, and there is nothing sinister about that.

and this administration certainly has established a history of that. *cough* katrina *cough*

By: Pyst

Pyst — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:15:54 +0000

“BTW Pyst – “he threatened my daddy” was not used as a justification for war. Many other reasons were given, go check it out. WMD was one in a long list.”

That was the real reason, not the publically stated reason.

Geez some people can’t understand satire. The Daily Show would be lost on you.

WMD was the ONLY reason given for over 6 months to the public, so stop trying to spin for free it’s unseemly.

By: CitizzenQ

CitizzenQ — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 04:01:48 +0000

Not to be melodramatic, but I cannot believe that anyone is surprised or disturbed in the least by this article. If we all had to put on our authors hats for a second and write a scene that involved a meeting between President Bush and Prime Minister Blair in January of 2003, I have a feeling it would look an awful lot like this.

By: Elrod

Elrod — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 03:04:39 +0000

I’m with Brian here. Who honestly doesn’t believe that Bush was dead-set on an invasion of Iraq, no matter what? In fact, the decision to go to the UN at all was probably not the result of cynicism as it was a divided White House. People like Cheney, Perle, Feith and Rumsfeld did not want to go to the UN at all. They wanted an invasion without any discussion with the UN. Powell, on the other hand, insisted that Bush get UN approval. Or at the very least, make a concerted effort to get the UN to support the invasion. I bet Blair and Powell together convinced Bush to make the case to the UN – in fact, to emphasize to the world community Saddam’s breach of UNSC resolutions as the casus bellum – in order to shore up international legitimacy for the invasion. But there was never any doubt that the invasion would go forward, approval or not.

By: Captain Carnage

Captain Carnage — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 02:01:06 +0000

So now that’s what – two (third party) memos suggesting that Bush had decided to invade Iraq before getting the world’s permission?

How much evidence points the other way? – enormous effort in the UN, Powell flying around the world non-stop.

All this suggests to me – if indeed the memo is accurate, which is by no means established – is that the Americans were putting together a plan to invade Iraq, which strikes me as extremely prudent under the circumstances. It does not suggest that they did not regard Iraq as a threat, that this was a “hobby” invasion.

I am extremely sceptical about the “paint the plane blue” plan – the risks associated with such a stunt would be enormous. How would you hide the evidence, and how many people would need to keep quiet? The fundamental questions that should be asked of any conspiracy theorist.

America writes plans for conflict with numerous other countries, no matter how unlikely such an event is. These plans are regularly refreshed. They probably have even one ready for a conflict with Canada. It’s called being prepared for any eventuality, and there is nothing sinister about that.

BTW Pyst – “he threatened my daddy” was not used as a justification for war. Many other reasons were given, go check it out. WMD was one in a long list.

By: Pyst

Pyst — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 22:42:28 +0000

(Bush) “He threatened my daddy”.

(Neo-cons) “Taking Saddam down will ignite democracies all around the arabic world”.

(Oil companies) “All that Iraqi for the taking, invade them now!”

(Economic advisors) “How dare Iraq, and Iran consider changing to the euro as the trading currency! Invade them now!”

(Actual US politcal needs at that time) “Find, then kill Bin Laden, and al Qaeda”.

(Reality) “Saddam gone, Iraq a mess, Bin Laden at large, and al Qaeda still opperating, and in Iraq. Iraqi oil not happening, Iran still going to change to euro. American public taken for the ride of a lifetime, and the US is a mess.

“Had enough yet”, (Newt Gingrich’s slogan for democratic use)

By: BrianOfAtlanta

BrianOfAtlanta — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 21:04:46 +0000

So, Bush was dead set on taking down Saddam. Whoda thunk it?

By: Celcus

Celcus — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 21:04:35 +0000

All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Moby Dick. He piled upon the whale’s white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart’s shell upon it.

By: K. Gregory

K. Gregory — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 20:43:21 +0000

You’re missing the key point of his post and the Times article. So hire a lawyer to parse every word. But the main point of the post and the Times article is very troubling. That is the issue here.

By: Mike P.

Mike P. — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 20:17:14 +0000

What previous history of hiding them? Poor track record of finding them!?

I don’t recall any such history, though I could be wrong… In any case, not finding WMDs is not the same as hidden WMDs, and to equate the two is pretty poor logic.

By: 01 Boxer

01 Boxer — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 19:44:03 +0000

One reason why Bush was hestitant on new inspections was because he was skeptical of the UN’s ability to find WMDs even if they were there, due to Saddam’s previous history of hiding them, and our previous poor track record of finding them. I doubt Bush was surprised that we hadn’t found any. He didn’t expect the UN to, even if they were there. So Bush acknowledging no WMDS had been found is not the same thing as Bush saying there were no WMDs. And equating the two is pretty poor logic.

By: republican

republican — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:30:59 +0000

Everyone knows (this has been on Fox News and all the reliable sources) that there were lots of WMD that have been moved to Syria, Iran and terrorist groups throughout the middleeast which shows that Operation Iraqi Freedom was not only necessary but a great success. Now we need to attack Iran and Syria so they can move the WMD to other countries we can attack.

By: Thomas Maguire

Thomas Maguire — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 17:48:36 +0000

From one standpoint, the memo shows that Bush…knew there were no weapons there at a time when he was telling Americans that there were weapons there…

Really? I would have said that the memo shows that Bush and Blair were glumly aware that no WMDs *had been found*, which is quite a different thing.

Tom Maguire